Burma: UN Security Council

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to ensure that the United Nations Security Council discusses the report of the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ibrahim Gambari, following his meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi; and the upsurge in violence in the Karen state.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, on 31 May, Under-Secretary-General Gambari briefed United Nations Security Council members on his visit to Burma and his meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. We understand that he requested that the regime should release her and put an end to the violence in Karen state. We support the United States' proposals for a proper discussion of Burma at the Security Council, which we hope will lead to a resolution. Today is her 61st birthday. The Prime Minister has made a statement, and I am certain that all sides of the House would want to wish her well.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he reflect on the fact that on this, Aung San Suu Kyi's 61st birthday, it is 16 years since the National League for Democracy won 82 per cent of the seats in the Parliament in Myanmar and that for many of those years she has been kept under virtual house arrest? Recently, in Karen state, to which the Minister referred, the upsurge in violence has even led to the point-blank-range killing of a little girl aged nine following the shooting dead of her grandmother and her father. As the years have passed, some 28 Commission on Human Rights resolutions have been passed at the United Nations. Surely, the time is now right, as the Minister said, for a binding Security Council resolution. What prospects does the Minister believe there are for its success?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I also deplore the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and the attacks carried out by the Burmese army on civilians in northern and western Karen state. Representations on all those matters were made by my right honourable friend Ian McCartney on 15 June. At the moment, my estimation is that there is not support for a binding resolution, but there is, we believe, growing support— much work still needs to be done on it—for a non-binding resolution, if we can overcome the objections, in particular, of China and Russia.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government and by the United Nations over many years. What impact have they had? What has been achieved so far, particularly in relation to the genocidal activities against the Karen people? Is any action being taken to mobilise regional support and representation from states surrounding Burma?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, there has been a consistent pattern of trying to intervene. The House will appreciate that the regime does not court any kind of external interest. It does not even seem interested, broadly speaking, in its neighbours in any respect. It has withdrawn, year by year successively, from international links of all kinds, but we continue not only to put pressure on it, but to put the case to China and other ASEAN states because, in the long term, that is probably the only option that is fully open to us.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, should be congratulated on raising an issue that has been put to one side because of a preoccupation with other international issues? I feel disappointed in the Minister's response, though only to an extent—because our Government have done well in getting the matter raised at the Security Council. However, the thought that we may not get a binding resolution is really disappointing and gives the feeling that somewhere around the world, if not in this country, punches are being pulled. Is it not about time that we redoubled our effort to get a binding resolution to get rid of this dictatorial, brutal regime at last and to get democracy returned to Burma?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I share my noble friend's discouragement about the difficulties that we face in getting a binding resolution. We have fully supported the discussions of Burma in the Security Council, and we hoped that the Security Council would press on to highlight the international concerns over human rights abuses in the country, including the latest attacks on Karen civilians. But we are where we are; we are not at the moment in a position, apparently, to change the mind of China and Russia on the question, and getting a non-binding resolution will itself raise the issue further but not go the whole of the way that we would ideally like to go.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, it seems that, with the passage of time, the Burmese junta is less and less likely to be influenced by western concerns. I welcome the Minister's comment that Russia and China are key players in regional stability there, but could he assure us that every effort is being made to bring Russia and China to our way of thinking? The release of Aung San Suu Kyi is an essential precondition of any further steps forward, but it could also be a first step towards serious dialogue, provided that the international community looks at its objectives again to see where we can find opportunities to balance what is desirable with what is achievable.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I readily give the assurance that the noble Lord asked for. We shall continue to put the pressure on; it would be ideal if we could get to a position of unanimity in the Security Council. The methods that the international community is deploying are probably the ones that are genuinely available. If it appears that other tactics may be more effective, we are very open to that. Persuading Burma's immediate neighbours in the ASEAN region is probably the most effective way, because even with a regime as cut off as this one, some elements of its international trade remain essential to it.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the recent attacks on the Karen people, to which reference has been made, more than 18,000 more Karen have been forced to leave their homes and villages and live as displaced people in the jungle in appalling conditions, with no shelter, food or medical aid? Would Her Majesty's Government therefore encourage DfID to support responsible aid organisations to take medical and other aid to those people, who otherwise are dying in ways that could be avoided?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, two significant aid programmes are already in place: one is spending £1.8 million over three years, and another is spending £500,000 every year with the key aid organisations. If we are to extend that, DfID, very properly, will want to know that the money is going to bodies that can give a proper account of how they then spend the money; otherwise there would be legitimate criticism. The programmes that we have are important and, if they can be geared up further, I shall unquestionably ensure that DfID is aware of the views of the House.

Lord Dubs: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry; we are into the ninth minute, so we must move on.

Child Protection: Witchcraft

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will respond to the request by African Churches in the United Kingdom to publish Department for Education and Skills research into allegations of witchcraft and possession in the United Kingdom.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the findings and recommendations of the research commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills to scope the problem of child abuse in England linked to belief in possession or witchcraft are being considered by Ministers across government and will be published as soon as possible.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that the report will be published very soon; many of us look forward to it. How widespread has the consultation been in drafting the report? What long-term proposals do the Government have to continue the dialogue with African Churches in the UK to prevent those who are doing their ordinary job—doing it very well—being tarred with the same brush as some of the extreme sects that cause us so much concern?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, as I said, we hope to publish the report shortly, together with a full statement of government policy in response to it. The issues raised are very grave.
	Eleanor Stobart, the independent consultant who wrote the report, held discussions with social workers, teachers, police officers, voluntary workers and others with knowledge of the subject. She also collected and examined reports of all cases known to have occurred since 2000. We have been working closely with the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service, which has great expertise in the area and includes the black Churches. It has produced best practice guidance on how to handle such issues. Its director, David Pearson, who is very highly regarded, is working closely with his member Churches to see that they have the expertise that they need to deal with these cases.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, it is important that communities and Churches made up of good and decent people are not vilified. There remain deep concerns about the treatment of a number of children. Does the DfES report look into claims that some children born in Britain are being sent to the Congo, ostensibly to live with relatives, where they end up in appalling conditions in some of the revivalist Churches? If we are to avoid vilification, we need to be sure of the facts. Also, what assistance and resources are being made available to the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service and the Metropolitan Police for training and education in child protection in the African Churches and other religious organisations?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the full details will be in the report and I cannot, unfortunately, pre-judge its publication. We have given support to the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service to develop its work, including publication, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, of its new guidance, Safe and Secure. That includes a helpline that can give support and advice in crisis situations to those dealing with ongoing protection concerns. It also gives safe practice guidance to protect children and young people from abuse and workers from false allegations. The Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service has also held positive meetings with Congolese pastors, who have expressed a clear desire to work closely with the advisory service and us in child protection. For example, a child protection training event, run by the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service, was held in February and attended by no fewer than 230 Congolese pastors. We believe that we are making progress, but I do not minimise the gravity of the situation.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, of 40,000 allegations of child abuse made over the past five years in the Metropolitan Police area, 50 concerned allegations of witchcraft involving young African children? He said that the report is to be published very soon; can he give us some idea of whether "very soon" is within the next month or the next three months?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I hope that it will be closer to the first than the second.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have made an assessment of the effectiveness of the House of Lords within a bicameral Parliament since the reform of the House by the House of Lords Act 1999.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government keep under constant review work on the effectiveness of the House of Lords. The House of Lords has a valuable role to play in the legislative process of this country.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Answer. Does she agree that since 1999 your Lordships' House has played an excellent role as a revising Chamber, getting the House of Commons to think again on a number of issues without seriously challenging the supremacy of the other place? Will not all that change if your Lordships' House is partly or wholly elected? Elected Members will have to make commitments to their electorate to use every procedural device to challenge and thwart the will of the House of Commons.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we all agree that this House does an excellent job as a revising Chamber. The noble Lord knows that the composition of the House is being looked at and that the Government have promised a free vote on the issue. When we last voted, this House voted for the continuation of an appointed second Chamber, and the House of Commons did not reach a view.

Lord Soley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that now is the time for all parties in this House to be much more positive and proactive? There are opportunities to expand the role of the House in scrutinising legislation—not least, in post-legislative scrutiny, which is attracting considerable interest. Will my noble friend join me in saying to all parties and Members, "Let us look positively at what we can do and worry less about scoring party-political points"?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Soley indicated, it is important to look positively at the role that the House can play, but we also have to be candid with ourselves. There are very different views around your Lordships' House—not necessarily based on party affiliations—on the role that this House can play. We should discuss that in a way that allows us to be candid and open, and I hope that the Joint Committee's consideration of conventions will start that process.

Lord Renton: My Lords, having been in the other place from 1945 until 1979, may I say that the other place has somewhat declined in its representation and that your Lordships' House has increased its representation to a most remarkable extent? Indeed, I venture to suggest that it is better left as it is, because if it tried to be representative by election it might decline.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a great deal more experience than I. Indeed, he entered Parliament nine years before I was born. The two Houses operate differently; we have different roles in our bicameral Parliament. There is no doubt that the role of the House of Lords has changed. In a dynamic democracy, that is to be expected.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all the studies—including that by the Constitution Unit at University College, London—and most opinion polls actually confirm that since 1998 the prestige of this House has risen enormously with the general public? Could that have anything to do with the fact that the reformed House more accurately reflects the support for parties in the country than the other place does and thus there is less of the Punch-and-Judy politics that we see there? Could she draw that to the attention of the Leader of the House of Commons? Part of the solution to lifting the prestige of the Commons might be to reform its own voting system.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is always entertaining to listen to. I do not agree with him that the reason why this House has such a high standing in the country is that it more accurately reflects support for parties. I think that it reflects the fact that, on certain controversial issues, when this House takes a stand—I think that, last time I answered a Question on House of Lords reform, I said that this was not always a comfortable place for a Government to be—those issues are given a lot of time in the media; that is when this House rises to the fore. In addition, the work and in-depth studies done by many Select Committees in this House—in particular, the Science and Technology Committee and the European Union Committee—gain much credibility outside.

Lord Sewel: My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader accept that the expertise and experience that is available in this House could be better brought to bear on the legislative process and the role of scrutiny by an examination and perhaps an enhancement of the committee structure of this House?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are a number of ways in which the expertise in the House could be better brought to bear. My noble friend Lord Soley mentioned pre-legislative scrutiny. We are now talking about an enhanced role for the committee system in this House. That is part of a process that I hope the House can engage in—thinking positively about what the role of the House should be.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, is it not the case that, as a result of rigorous programming in another place, Bills are now arriving in this House with substantial parts of them not having been debated at all in the lower House? Has not the burden of legislation shifted substantially from the Commons to this House? Should one not consider carefully whether something needs to be done to reverse the trend of the past 10 years?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I really think that this House cannot say that its principal role is as a revising Chamber and then complain when it is called on to revise legislation. On the issue of consideration in another place, it would be helpful for this House to know that, on the whole, another place spends more time in Committee than we do. However, it makes a decision about which parts of a Bill it wants to focus on. I do not agree that the burden of legislation has shifted; both Houses have a role to play.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in recent years this House has played an important part in protecting the rights of individuals against the Executive? However, does she also agree that in a democracy it is the will of the people that should count? We should be careful before we say that the people should not elect us, because that undermines the rights of the ordinary individuals whom we are here to serve.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, both Houses have a role in holding the Executive to account. With respect to elections, noble Lords know my view; but there are very different views in this House and in another place. We have to debate those views and seek a way forward, building on consensus. I very much hope that the Joint Committee will be the first part of that process.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, should not the Minister answer the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, who said that the House, if mostly elected in future, would not accept even maintaining the existing powers, let alone a reduction?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with that. A great deal of work needs to be done with respect to, for example, the basis of the elections if this House were to become partially elected. A number of questions need to be answered.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Leader agree that, if this House becomes elected, as she believes it should, it would in fact be just as legitimate as the House of Commons? Far from having a reduction in its powers, this House would have to share powers with the House of Commons, and the House of Commons would eventually have to accept that, whether it liked it or not.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that we are all agreed on the primacy of the House of Commons.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that, should the House become elected or partially elected, Members of Parliaments' constituents might well find that they were represented by a Member of the House of Commons from one party and a Member of the House of Lords from another? What would that do to the relationship between the two Houses when they voted?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a question about the possible electoral system for the House if we went down the road of being partially elected. I am not aware that we are anywhere near that.

Energy: Coal Production

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have made of the level of security of supply provided by domestic coal production for energy generation; and how they propose to encourage the necessary investment.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a clear and obvious advantage of domestic coal production is the contribution that it makes to security of supply. The Government's energy review is considering the contribution that all sources of energy can make to our four key energy policy goals of cutting carbon emissions; maintaining the reliability of supplies; promoting competition; and ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated. The energy review will report in July.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. I am pleased to hear him speak positively about the potential importance of domestically produced coal. Will he ensure that, when he publishes the findings of the energy review, it will be emphasised as a key component, not only because such coal is produced domestically, but because it will be, I hope, part of our diversified energy source in the UK? Will he also ensure that the planning issues relating to new deep mines or surface mines are addressed by his colleagues in government, so that when the policy is published it can actually be implemented?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, this is the sort of issue that the energy review will cover. It will, of course, also cover some of the disadvantages of coal. It is the balance between the disadvantages and advantages that will determine what part coal plays in our energy policy.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of my long-term association with the coal industry, I cannot resist intervening in the Question. In view of the fact that indigenous coal is now substantially cheaper than imported coal—in spite of which 80 per cent of the coal used in power stations is imported—would the Government be prepared to persuade the power-generating companies to place increasing quantities of contracts with British producers of coal, to enable them to make the necessary investment to expand production and contribute to the country's security of supply and to ensure that we get the benefit of the lower prices?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is true that at the present time indigenous coal is cheaper than much imported coal, due to freight prices going up substantially in the past two years. In fact, two years ago, the reverse was the position. Such issues will be covered by the energy review, but I think that it is unlikely that a policy of intervening in commercial relationships would be supported.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most important points is the absence of miners? It is now 20 years since the end of the miners' strike, when the heart was ripped out of mining communities. There is little stomach in mining communities for young men to go down the pit any more. Unless we are talking about deep mining on a massive scale, we will not get the supplies that the optimists around us seem to envisage. It will either be Polish coal or Polish miners working in British mines, digging British coal.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that there are real difficulties with increasing substantially the supply of indigenous coal. That includes the fact that, in a lot of cases, surface mining would be the most attractive method, but there are real problems with getting planning permission for that, given the environmental impact.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does not the stated commitment of the Prime Minister, and indeed of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to sourcing energy from nuclear sources mean that there is not much of a future for coal production for energy purposes?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, my Lords. One thing is absolutely clear about energy policy: a diverse range of sources is key. There is no one source of energy that meets the needs of our three objectives better than any other. A mix of energy sources is, therefore, needed. It is perfectly possible that, within that diversity of sources, there is room for both nuclear and coal.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister say something on what used to be a massive difference between the cost of deep-mined coal and that obtained through opencast mining? Can this country ever compete properly with opencast mining in other parts of the world?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly surface mining is cheaper, and I think that most of our imported coal comes from surface mining. It is interesting to note from today's figures that we have 5.9 million tonnes of coal produced by 4,200 people in deep mines, compared with 10.5 million tonnes produced by 1,850 people in surface mines. I cannot believe that that does not have a very big impact on cost.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the future of coal will be linked to carbon storage and capture, and will he say whether the energy review will look at the financial incentives for companies looking to develop and build the infrastructure for carbon storage and capture?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if coal is to have a future, dealing with emissions will be important. It is interesting that Powerfuel Ltd, the company headed by Richard Budge, recently proposed bringing Hatfield colliery back into use and building alongside it a carbon-capture-ready integrated gasification combined-cycle power plant, doing so on a commercial basis supported by Russian money. That is an interesting development because it suggests that Richard Budge, at least, can see a commercial future in that area.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, a Statement will be repeated this afternoon on the European Council, June 2006. It will be delivered by my noble friend the Leader and will be taken at a convenient time after four o'clock.

Leicester City Council Bill

Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Liverpool City Council Bill

Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Maidstone Borough Council Bill

Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

National Health Service Bill [HL]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill is the first of three linked Bills in my name on the Order Paper. If I may, I shall speak to them together and then move the second and third Motions formally. I am grateful to those at the Law Commission and the Department of Health who have worked on all three Bills.
	The National Health Service Bill relates to the health service in England. Its structure refers to health service bodies, services, conditions, consultation and scrutiny committees.
	The National Health Service (Wales) Bill is structured in much the same way. It sets out the promotion and provision of the health service in Wales, followed by discrete parts focused on the structure of the National Health Service in Wales, local authorities and the National Health Service, primary care services, and charging.
	This is part of the Government's programme of consolidation, and consolidation is part of the Government's better regulation agenda. It makes the law easier to use and understand, and it improves the statute book and saves time and money for those who have to consult it.
	The third Bill is the National Health Service (Consequential Provisions) Bill. It makes provision for repeals, revocations, consequential amendments, transitional and transitory modifications and savings in connection with the consolidation of National Health Service law in England and Wales. Although this Bill is an essential part of the consolidation, it is not, strictly speaking, itself a consolidation Bill; rather, it is ancillary to the other two Bills. As such, there has to be a specific Motion to refer it to the Joint Committee. I am very grateful for the work of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in supporting the consolidation of statutes that affect so many people in England and Wales.
	If your Lordships are content to give the National Health Service Bill a Second Reading, it will of course be subject to consideration by the Joint Committee, to which this and the National Health Service (Wales) Bill will be referred in the usual way. The National Health Service (Consequential Provisions) Bill will be referred to the other place before making its way to the Committee. I commend the first Bill to the House and beg to move.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

National Health Service (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

National Health Service (Consequential Provisions) Bill [HL]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Bill—on more than one occasion. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
	On Question, Bill read a second time.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the third Bill in my name be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
	Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Health Bill

Report received.
	Clause 2 [Smoke-free premises]:

Lord Russell-Johnston: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 11, at beginning insert "Except as provided in section (Premises serving food),"

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, the amendment that I am moving is essentially the same as that moved by my noble friend and colleague Lord Steel when the Committee met under the calculating eye of Moses on the wall. Unfortunately, my noble friend has a lunch engagement in Edinburgh, connected with cancer research, oddly enough, so I am standing in for him. I hope that he will be here later.
	The amendment must be read in conjunction with the new clause, in which there is a small change—the word "adequate" having been removed before the word "ventilation". While "adequate" is a word that is understood in common sense, it appears to have no clear legal definition.
	The amendment is about choice, which I regard as being fundamental to a liberal society. Having spent much of the weekend reading the Official Report of the Committee stage, I believe that the clear distinction between those who support my amendment and related later ones and those who do not is our wish to provide choice and the Government's intention to deny it. The Government are, I am sad to say, supported by my own Front Bench, which in my 42 years in Parliament I have never previously opposed but now very firmly do so.
	This is not a divide between smokers and non-smokers; it is about the rights of both. I support many non-smokers who want to find a fair way forward. People like me who are equally aware of the more harmful effects of excessive drinking do not preach prohibition. It is one of the moral contradictions of previous and proposed legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has often pointed out, that at the same time as imposing draconian laws preventing smoking we are easing restrictions on drinking. The number of deaths from alcoholism is about the same as that from smoke-induced cancer, but the pain, misery and crime related to drinking exceeds that related to smoking by 100 per cent.
	In my opinion, the whole Government case rests on poorly substantiated arguments about the supposed dangers of passive smoking. Having looked at the evidence on display, I suspect that going into a room in which three or four people are smoking puts you at rather less risk than walking down Victoria Street. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has written an excellent pamphlet, Smoking out the Truth. I quote only the British Medical Journal's publication of the work of the American Cancer Society, which tracked 118,000 Californians over 40 years and concluded that the results did not support the existence of a causal relationship between passive smoking and tobacco-related mortality. More recently, we have the report of our own Select Committee on Economic Affairs on responses to risk. It said that,
	"evidence we received suggested that the health risks associated with passive smoking are relatively minor".
	I mention passive smoking right at the beginning of our debate because the issue affects every aspect of the Government's proposals and the Government's case is clearly not scientifically substantiated. My amendment is nevertheless an attempt to compromise, suggesting a solution in which the risk of passive smoking—if risk there indeed be—is removed by the provision of physically separate smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants. The amendment also stresses that the smoking areas should be well ventilated. A letter that I have received from AIR states:
	"Sensibly constructed smoking rooms prevent any movement of smoke into adjoining non-smoking areas. This is reflected in the regulations implemented in Sweden and Italy. Hospital operating theatres and high-tech clean rooms rely on ventilation and filtration to stop contamination. The technologies used are equally effective against environmental tobacco smoke".
	I question the view cited by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is not with us today, that there is no such thing as adequate ventilation. Effective ventilation basically means air displacement and replacement; therefore, there is such a thing. This amendment, if implemented, would in no way detract from the Government's intentions to isolate smoking, even though I consider their argument ill founded. It would, however, protect freedom of choice and uphold the rights of smokers and non-smokers alike. I beg to move.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I draw the attention of the noble Lord—who quoted a letter from AIR—to paragraph 63 of the brief prepared for us by the Smokefree Action people, which says that research by D Kotzias and others at the European Commission Joint Research Centre's INDOORTRON facility concluded that,
	"changes in ventilation rates simulating conditions expected in many residential and commercial environments during smoking do not have a significant influence on the air concentration levels of ETS constituents, e.g. CO, NOx, aromatic compounds, nicotine. This suggests"—
	this is the important part—
	"that efforts to reduce ETS originated indoor air pollution through higher ventilation rates in buildings, including residential areas and hospitality venues, would not lead to a meaningful improvement in indoor air quality. Moreover the results show that 'wind tunnel' like rates or other high rates of dilution ventilation would be expected to be required to achieve pollutant levels close to ambient air limit values".
	We should not take what various people say for granted, but go back to the experts. These are the experts. I am that sure the noble Lord has also received the same briefings as we all have.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, many of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, and others are based on the view expressed by a number of noble Lords in Grand Committee that passive smoking carries very little, if any, health risk. When a lawyer says, "With respect", he means, "I do not agree with you"; when he says, "With great respect", he means, "You are talking nonsense"; and when he says, "With the greatest possible respect", he means, "You have gone off your head". With the greatest possible respect to the very distinguished Members of your Lordships' Economic Affairs Select Committee, I find the remarks made in its recently published report quite extraordinary and, indeed, inconceivable.
	The evidence that has been accumulated over the past five years has become increasingly powerful in demonstrating the devastating effect that passive smoking may have on the health of those exposed to it. Second-hand smoke is now classified as a class A substance—a known human carcinogen—by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Other class A carcinogens include asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon. About 50 international studies of second-hand smoke and lung cancer risk in people who have never smoked have been published over the past 25 years. Most recently, in 2004, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer reviewed the literature and concluded that second-hand smoke is cancer causing and that non-smokers living with smokers increase their lung cancer risk by approximately 20 per cent for women and 30 per cent for men. For non-smokers exposed in the workplace, the risk of lung cancer is increased by 16 to 19 per cent. The Government's own advisory committee on the effects of smoking, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, concluded that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for non-smokers of about 24 per cent.
	In Grand Committee, a noble Lord referred to the fact that Sir Richard Doll was quoted some time ago as saying that active smoking was harmful, but that second-hand smoke did not worry him. He said that as a throwaway remark when being interviewed on Radio 4's "Desert Island Discs" in February 2001. I knew Richard Doll very well and, some years ago, I had the privilege of succeeding him as warden of Green College, Oxford. In February 2005, just a month or two before he died, he wrote:
	"We first established the causal link between smoking and lung cancer in 1950, but the tobacco industry spent decades arguing that our results did not justify our conclusion . . . Now tobacco companies are using the same technique to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease. The evidence that it does is clear",
	and incontrovertible. He continued:
	"As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke".
	The evidence to the effect that to create smoking and non-smoking areas in places where food is served may overcome that risk is not at all convincing. All the medical bodies that I have consulted, and a huge number of public bodies acting on behalf of the communities in which they live, have come to the conclusion that that will not be an effective solution to the problem and that the only way in which the public at large and the workers in the catering and public house industries can be protected is by banning smoking entirely in those enclosed spaces. For that reason, I certainly could not support the amendment, particularly as recent public surveys have, in response to questionnaire exercises, indicated that across the country, and particularly in my native north-east of England, where the problem is very serious, more than 70 per cent of the public at large wish to see this ban imposed, as in the Bill that stands before us for consideration.

Lord Monson: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Walton, I believe that the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is broadly right. Experts can probably be found to advance a different point of view from those cited by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but we should look at the empirical evidence. I would guess that almost everyone in this Chamber today was born before 1955. Anyone born between, let us say, 1925 and 1955 would inevitably have been brought up surrounded by smoke, as everybody smoked in almost every public place and many people smoked at home as well, but we are all here, fit and well.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, has the noble Lord ever been to a hospital and seen the effects of passive smoking on people?

Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not think that anybody has ever had a death certificate with the words "passive smoking" on it. I agree that heavy, active smoking is dangerous—although not everybody is affected by it because it depends on one's genes—but the danger of passive smoking is, as yet, unproven. There is bound to be a slight risk, but I do not think that it is very great.
	To return to the amendment, the Minister will no doubt argue that the amendments are too narrowly drawn and therefore somewhat illogical. Why confine the Liberal approach—using "liberal" in both senses of the term—to places where food is served? I would agree, but that can easily be rectified at Third Reading or when the Bill returns to the other place. The principle is the important point. Under the arrangement proposed by the amendment, all employees would be protected from risk because no permission would be granted unless the room was totally segregated and sealed off and there was ventilation. That answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. That protection would be at the cost of minor inconvenience to smokers, because they would either have to collect their food from a buffet and carry it to the smoking area, or there would have to be an updated version of the 19th century dumb waiter if they wanted to smoke at the table. Actually, I believe that in 90 per cent of cases people would not wish to smoke at the table and would be perfectly happy to eat their meal with non-smokers and then retire to a separate smoking room for a cigarette or cigar, coffee and, possibly, something stronger. In that way, although the restaurant, pub or hotel would have had to go to some trouble and expense to provide a fully sealed and well ventilated smoking room, everybody ends up a winner and there are no losers.
	Rather than tamely following in the footsteps of New York City, California and a couple of other places in the United States that seem to have been seized by a modern form of puritan zealotry in matters of health, reminiscent of the disastrous experiment of prohibition about 80 years ago, we would do far better to emulate the Scandinavians. Indeed, the Government's marginally more liberal original proposals went, to some extent, in that direction before they were messed up on the Floor of the other place. Nobody could accuse the Scandinavians of being politically incorrect or in the slightest degree lax where health and safety are concerned; they are quite the contrary. Yet even the Scandinavians recognise that smokers deserve a fair deal and therefore they allow separate smoking rooms and smoking areas, provided that they are fully segregated. In that way, nobody loses out. That is surely far more in tune with our tradition of fair play than the puritanical absolutism we see across the Atlantic, an absolutism that is quite unnecessary for the purpose of protecting employees.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, when I seek advice on medication, I tend to ask my doctor. When it comes to other health matters, I prefer to listen to medical experts rather than to people who regard themselves as experts in other fields. The Economic Affairs Select Committee is made up of individuals of extraordinary quality and huge ability, but if one looks at what they have done in their lives, one sees that not one of them has any medical experience whatever.
	Medical experts are united on passive smoking. There is not one reputable medical authority opposed to what the Government seek with this Bill. Their Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health describes second-hand smoke as,
	"a controllable and preventable form of indoor air pollution . . . a substantial health hazard",
	and says:
	"It is evident that no infant, child or adult should be exposed to secondhand smoke".
	Similar points were made in a letter to the Times, which was published last Thursday, signed by the chairman of the council of the BMA, the chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing. They said:
	"To the medical and nursing professions the evidence is clear, overwhelming and unequivocal. There is no safe level of exposure".
	The approach proposed in this amendment is not novel, although, interestingly, it was rejected by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties at the last election. Both parties were committed to a smoke-free policy wherever food was served, whether in a pub or a restaurant. The noble Lords, Lord Russell-Johnston and Lord Monson, are correct that the policy has been followed in a number of countries, but, inconveniently for them, in most cases where that approach has been followed, it has either been abandoned or found to be unworkable. The report published by the Health Select Committee in another place reported at paragraph 36 that,
	"the law in Italy provides for separate smoking areas with illuminated signs, automatic doors and an approved ventilation system. However, because of practical difficulties in creating such an environment in many premises, it is estimated that 97% of outlets in Italy have in fact introduced a complete ban on smoking".
	In Scandinavia, Norway is an interesting example. I had the good fortune to visit Oslo with the All-Party Parliamentary British-Norwegian Group during the Whitsun Recess. We met Dr Bjrn-Inge Larsen, the director-general for health and social affairs in the Norwegian Government; he is the equivalent of our Chief Medical Officer. He has since written to me and is happy for me to quote from his letter:
	"Prior to 1 June 2004, Norwegian legislation on smoking in bars and restaurants allowed smoking in 50% of the premises. An evaluation study from 1999 showed that the smoking zones were not a satisfactory arrangement. Results from this study showed that the enforcement of the law was not satisfactory. In at least 30% of Norwegian communities, there was no supervision at all. In the remaining communities supervision was random and often superficial. Approximately 50% of the inspectors said it was impossible to follow the regulations concerning zones in practice. Few of them were satisfied with the current regulations, and a majority wanted stronger restrictions. Among guests, a majority—two-thirds—reported that they preferred staying in smoke-free areas. Evaluations after the ban came into force, show that the hospitality industry itself reports that compliance after the total ban is 90% as opposed to only 51% when the legislation required smoking zones".
	The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has said exactly what I wanted to say on ventilation, so I will not tire your Lordships by repeating it, although it is interesting that again the Select Committee dealt with the matter very convincingly in the other place.
	The noble Lord's amendment proposes that staff would not be forced to work in smoking rooms. How workable is that? Just imagine what it would mean. Let us suppose that it has been a long, tiring day working in the pub. The smoking room is full of dirty glasses and perhaps the remains of uneaten food. The ashtrays are full. The atmosphere is disgusting. Then the boss asks the 19 year-old waitress from Poland to go in and clear up. She says, "I am sorry. I am taking advantage of the protection given to me by Lord Russell-Johnston's amendment and I refuse to do it". It is not a conceivably sensible or workable proposition.
	Finally, paragraph 49 of the Select Committee report says:
	"The argument that workers can choose where to work and therefore can decide whether to take on health risks goes against the grain of most legislation to protect workers. The same point could have been made about child chimney sweeps".

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I thought it possible that there might be some reference to the Economic Affairs Select Committee's report on risk management and therefore I thought I would take the earliest possible opportunity to repeat what we said in our report, not what I think most people who have probably not read the report will deduce as what we said. It was a report on the Government's management of risk in its widest sense. The report is favourable to the Government and states that they have rather good policies in relation to risks. We gave one or two examples, but the one that is clearly of interest to the House at this stage of the Bill is what we said about passive smoking.
	First, we said that we accept that there are health risks in smoking and that it is better not to smoke. Secondly, we said that there are health risks in passive smoking but that the issue is how much risk. This was not based upon our views, as one noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber said. Everything in our report was evidence-based and anyone who cares to look at it will see that the people who gave evidence actually know what they are speaking about. We had evidence on this issue, particularly from Sir Richard Peto, the professor of medical statistics at Oxford University, who—if I may summarise what he said in his evidence—is in favour of banning smoking for entirely different reasons from the Government. He is in favour of banning passive smoking because that will make it so damn difficult for anyone to smoke anywhere that they will not smoke. That is his reason. But he said that the risks are small and difficult to measure.
	The Minister's colleague, Caroline Flint, also gave evidence. She pointed out to us that 95 per cent of all the deaths from cancer take place from smoking in the home. The Bill does not deal with smoking in the home. Indeed, the argument put to us is that it might actually increase smoking in the home because, in so far as people are not able to smoke in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, would like, they will smoke in their homes. So, in that sense, the Bill will increase the risk of cancer because more people will smoke at home and more children will be affected.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords—

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord has distorted what I said already. He has had his go so perhaps I may finish what I have to say, which will not take many more seconds.
	The issue about which we were concerned and which we wished to put to the Government is that there is a little bit of risk but there is also an infringement of human liberties. It is the necessity of government—and the Government's responsibility—to judge those two factors and to reach a conclusion. Having listened to the evidence, we came to the unanimous conclusion that the infringement of human liberty was sufficiently high in our scale of priorities and the risk of passive smoking—particularly as the Bill does not affect matters in the home—was sufficiently small that in our judgment it did not justify this policy. So that is what we said.
	Anyone who wants to read the report is welcome to do so. No doubt there will be a debate on our report in another place, but it does not quite say what some people wish to interpret it as saying. I think that the report is fairly moderate and reasonable. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, when he said that the committee was made up of eminent people—that was a good start—but his speech went downhill a little after that. The report was unanimous—and the overwhelming bulk of the members of our committee do not smoke.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the speech that we have just heard is a little prejudiced by reason of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, presided over the committee. That does not mean to say that the committee came to the right conclusion.

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, it was a unanimous vote.

Lord Clinton-Davis: So what, my Lords? I do not care whether it was unanimous or not; it was wrong. The noble Lord did not speak about the infringement of the human liberties of the people who suffer from passive smoking, or any sort of smoking. Whether it occurs in the home or outside is irrelevant. I would support a conclusion that there should be no smoking in the home at all.
	I am not persuaded by the idea that what is proposed now represents an infringement of human liberty at all. Nor is the question of choice relevant. Does the victim of passive smoking have any choice? I think not. For that reason I also unreservedly support banning smoking in the workplace and in enclosed public places. I would go even further, but we are considering today what is in the Bill. The question of choice therefore represents a sort of blindfold to which we should not be subject at all.
	It has also been proposed that the Bill include other concerns. The fact that we do not deal with everything is no reason for not dealing with something. Therefore, although we ought to consider road vehicles on other occasions, on this occasion we are considering smoking. For that reason we should come to the conclusion that is consistent with pretty well all the medical and health organisations that have opined on this issue. Their views unmistakeably are that smoking, particularly passive smoking, is injurious to health.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, flies entirely in the face of the opinion of people well qualified to opine on these issues because it is part of their everyday experience. People such as nurses, doctors—and I am not talking only about consultants, but ordinary doctors—unreservedly, through their professional bodies, come to the view that smoking is harmful. It is a view that I agree with. I do not think that any noble Lord ought readily to fly in the face of the opinion of people such as those to whom I have referred.
	The issue has been well tried in Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, New York and elsewhere. It would be idle to pretend that we can ignore the views of people as widely based as that. I admit readily that I am prejudiced about this because I smoked until 1992, when I became ill. I smoked cigars; I think I was wrong—I exposed people to risk who had no choice about what I was doing.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have never smoked. I dislike smoking, particularly in restaurants. But I consider that Parliament, encouraged by the Government, pushes people about far too much. I support the noble Lord's amendment but I ask him: am I not right in thinking that the Liberal Democrats, who are in power in Scotland, brought about the total ban in Scotland? What is the Liberal point of view on this? What is liberal? Does choice matter, or does it not? In Scotland, nobody can smoke in a restaurant. I quite enjoy that, I am bound to say, but Parliament had better stop messing people about.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I yield to no one in my great respect for the medical evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, but he really must not be allowed to get away with this. I served on the much-abused Select Committee, whose excellent report has been cited. In considering the medical danger, there are two sides to the question—the epidemiology, on which the noble Lord is very qualified to speak, and the statistics. Both give an idea of the risk.
	The two experts on our committee were not doctors but statisticians. They understood the statistics and on the basis of their examination of the statistical evidence, they concluded that the risk from passive smoking was actually quite small. There was a risk, but it was quite small. On the basis of their conclusion, we concluded that the response of the Government was disproportionate. It is not that there is no risk and that it should not be addressed in some way, but the blanket response of banning smoking in all public places is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Government gave up too soon, propelled by their own Back-Benchers. There are alternative things that can be done.
	The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said that he was unconvinced by the possibilities of ventilation. The possibilities are there, and technology means that they are improving the whole time. There is a lot of evidence that ventilation reduces ETS by up to 90 per cent where it is properly installed and properly applied, and it does not cost that much. That is a route we should explore; it is the method used in many countries in the European Union. We would be in a minority in the European Union in going for a blanket ban. For those reasons, I support this amendment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, talked about supervision. That is a problem with any legislation, whether you have to supervise separate accommodation, ventilation systems or total bans. I should have thought, on balance, that it would be more difficult to supervise total bans than more targeted measures, which arouse less hostility.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I very much enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. He spoke very eloquently about the views of his committee, but I am afraid I cannot support the amendments. I believe that they would dilute the effect of a very important part of the Bill and allow all sorts of loopholes to be opened. I declare my interest as an ex-practising physician and past president of the Royal College of Physicians, which had a view on smoking.
	It has been suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that smoking at home would increase if this part of the Bill were not amended. But experience from other countries shows the opposite, and that smoking at home decreases as a result. We are talking about a health hazard, the risks of which are absolutely clear. We know that passive smoking at home clearly increases the risk of lung cancer, heart attacks and strokes. An enormous number of studies have shown that—it is a toxin. Furthermore, we know that smoking in pubs and clubs raises pollution in those places to levels much higher than in most other places, including Victoria Street and the Marylebone Road, where they have been measured. When measured, the levels of cotinine, a smoke pollutant, in the saliva of pub workers who do not smoke are very high. In fact, they are higher than those of non-smoking spouses who live in the same house as those who smoke.
	We also know that there appears to be a straight-line relationship between smoke exposure and the risk of disease and death—the more exposure, the greater the risk—and there is no absolutely safe lower limit. In fact, for coronary heart disease, it is non-linear. That is, low levels of exposure are almost as risky as high levels. Incidentally, that is quite different from the case of alcohol, where we know that a large amount of alcohol is dangerous—which I have spoken about on a number of occasions—but a small amount is actually protective. The relationship with alcohol is not linear; it is U-shaped, so comparisons with alcohol are not reasonable.
	Then we have the epidemiological evidence that it is likely, on a conservative estimate, that about one hospitality industry non-smoking worker a week dies from the effects of exposure to smoke. That was published in the British Medical Journal last year. Even Philip Morris, the United States smoking giant, seems to accept that and has published it.
	In talking of choice, it does not seem credible that we would allow anyone to spray carcinogens into an atmosphere where others could breathe them in—we would be down on them in a flash. Faced with all that, I find it hard to accept the proposal that we should weaken the Bill by agreeing to this amendment. It just does not seem right and I cannot support it.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, I declare a non-interest as a non-smoker, as someone who does not like smoking, has never wished to smoke and does not enjoy the company of people who are smoking, although I enjoy the company of smokers. I do not particularly like to cross swords with my neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, but there is another side to this: people's enjoyment of their social life. An Englishman's home is his castle and an Englishman's club is his home. We should not deny people the right to smoke in a segregated room in which the staff do not have to serve, where people can meet and damage their own health if they want to—where they are fully aware of the risk. It is quite wrong for us to protect people from their own foolishness.
	A member of staff may sign the fact that she does not wish to serve in a smoky zone and then be pressed into it late at night to clear up the dishes when the smokers have gone. To suggest that that small exposure to passive smoking—three or four minutes of old smoke—will lead to her rapid demise misses the whole question of the nature of poisons. The nature of poison is in the dose—the greater the dose, the greater the risk. Provided that there are adequate staff safeguards, we should not stop people doing what they wish to do in segregated rooms in their clubs, albeit that they are damaging their own health. This is indeed a freedom issue and I know that in my own constituency, where I live, many people are now deeply upset by this social deprivation—something that will be denied to them which they have hitherto had. This is a freedom issue of the first importance and I intend to vote for this measure.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I call the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill before us is not the Bill which appeared in the Labour Party manifesto; nor is it the Bill which the Government presented to Parliament in accordance with that manifesto. We are discussing a Bill that goes much further than the Government wanted and much further than the people voted for. When people are discussing this Bill they should take that into account.
	Secondly, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. I think that it is too weak, but it is better than nothing. I support it for the reasons that he and other noble Lords have given. There has been a witch hunt against smokers for a long time. It is now continuing apace and in a completely irrational way, because in spite of what people have said about ventilation it is possible to separate smokers from non-smokers in public places. Modern ventilation techniques are very efficient in cleaning air; they are used in factories, offices and aircraft. Why on earth, if they can be used in such situations, they cannot be used in social situations—in restaurants and public houses—I simply do not know.
	I believe that the agenda is completely and utterly different and that the junk evidence that is given is designed to demonise smokers in order that eventually we can have a smoking ban. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, envisaged exactly that when he said that he would like to see smoking banned in the home. So there is a different agenda.
	On the evidence, which of course is statistical only, we are told that we should listen to the doctors. Well, of course we should—but doctors are not always right. There is adequate evidence to show that doctors are often very wrong indeed. There are 5,000 cases a year of medical negligence in hospitals, so we know that they are not always right. What is more, there is no clinical evidence to tie passive smoking to a higher death rate in many of the diseases claimed. The evidence is totally statistical, so why should we be told to listen to the doctors rather than the statisticians? And, of course, the statisticians are much divided on this: of 147 studies undertaken, only 24 have shown any statistical evidence at all that passive smoking represents any real danger, so even the statistical evidence must really be examined very closely.
	I come back to the question of separation. It can and should be done, and this amendment enables it to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, is qualified, I appreciate that—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I cannot see why that is amusing. When I throw a compliment to one of my colleagues, why should that be considered amusing? I meant it as a serious compliment, and I hope that the noble Lord will take it as such. But he did say that if we saw anybody spraying carcinogens into the atmosphere, we would be down on them. Well, there are about 35 million vehicles spraying carcinogens into the atmosphere every single day. What are we doing about them? Many people believe that the fumes from vehicle exhausts are far more dangerous than passive smoking and perhaps smoking itself. Indeed, the ODPM claims that some 20,000 people die every year from vehicle exhaust fumes. So why are we clamping down on smokers? The number of deaths estimated from passive smoking even by those in favour of this Bill amounts to about 600 a year, not 20,000.
	I believe that noble Lords are being misled by this Bill and many of the arguments put forward for it. It is a totally illiberal Bill; it is, in its present form, unnecessary. If the Government had brought forward the proposals contained in the manifesto and agreed by the people, there would have been little argument about it. They have not, and for that reason I shall support the noble Lord's amendment and, indeed, some others, which I hope will come later.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was just a little ahead of himself in the context of the amendments and was really rather pointing towards a later amendment about smoking in clubs. That will come later in the evening. I certainly look forward to it, because I look forward to the noble Lord telling noble Lords on this side of the House that we ought to vote against the Labour manifesto. This is a nice occasion. Having been told so frequently recently that it is very wicked to vote against the Labour Party's manifesto, tonight we will be told that it is very good to vote against it. I will save that touch of enjoyment for later.
	I certainly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who spoke of the curious way in which lawyers insult those with whom they disagree. He then went on, in his own way, to say that it was inconceivable that the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham could have reached the conclusions that it did. It is not only conceivable; it is a fact that it reached those conclusions. I worry when medical experts use the English language in such a sloppy manner as to say that something is inconceivable, when it has not only been conceived, but done.
	Of course, doctors are, we all agree, extremely useful technicians, but they are not always right. If I were a statistician, I could observe that 100 per cent of patients who go to doctors die. This is statistical fact. I am surprised that on this Bill somebody has not by now ridden away with statistics of that degree of idiocy. The medical consensus of today is sometimes the medical heresy of tomorrow—and, very frequently, vice versa.
	What worries me in all this is the attitude of the Government. We have not heard what the Minister is going to say today, but some of us who were in Grand Committee have heard a bit of it. If I am right—I am sure the Minister will indicate immediately if I am wrong—this Bill does not apply to prisons. Despite everything that has been said by supporters of the Bill and supporters of the Government about the monstrous injustice of condemning people to work in dangerous conditions, warders, who are government servants, will be required to work in public places. Is a prison a public place? It is a bit hard to distinguish just how public it is these days, as people come and go.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I just wanted to see how far the noble Lord would go. I watched him going agreeably along this path. If he reads the Bill, he will see that there will be discussions about how the Bill will apply to prisons. I wanted to see whether the noble Lord had read the Bill and understood the explanatory memorandum. It is quite clear that he has not.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I always come here looking for guidance from Ministers about legislation. It is a bit rough when you say to a Minister "Have I understood this correctly?" and he says "I am going to stay mum". What is certain is that this Bill does not apply to prisons in the way that it would apply to clubs, pubs and restaurants.

Lord Warner: My Lords, it does not apply to old people's homes in the same way, either. There are all sorts of other places akin to the home where there are different arrangements. That is why it is an extremely well structured Bill.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it is interesting that a prison is seen as being akin to somebody's home. It is quite extraordinary. It is also akin to somebody's place of work. However, I will let the Minister argue his way out of his own convoluted legislation. As a non-smoker myself—I have always been a non-smoker—it is a great pity that the medical profession and the Government have not been more assiduous in bringing forward information that would help us to make our minds up about these things.
	I mentioned in Grand Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I, having shared the same profession years ago, sat on the flight decks of civil aeroplanes for many long hours over many years, almost always in the company of smokers. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is a smoker but I, as a non-smoker, certainly had to put up with an awful lot of smoke—and so did all of my colleagues. All our medical records are held by the Civil Aviation Authority, which has watched our health through all our years. It would not be difficult to follow us up since we retired. It would be simplicity itself to look at those statistics and establish the facts with that perfect control group. Wonderful!
	When I wrote to the Chief Medical Officer to suggest that he might do that, he said that he did not think it would be helpful. When one offers such information in that way and is told that it is unhelpful, the question in my mind is, "Unhelpful to whom, or to what?" Is it unhelpful to rational debate, or to the irrational debate that the Government have produced to justify large parts of this Bill?

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, as one of the few Members of your Lordships' House to be born after 1955, I have had the experience of growing up alongside some very fast-changing attitudes to smoking in this country. I am delighted that we have now come to the stage where, I believe, public opinion is much in favour of introducing the measures set out in this legislation. It is extremely important to remind ourselves of the point made at the start of this debate, that ventilation is not a suitable alternative.
	When I was 12, my father was diagnosed with lung cancer; he also had asthma. I spent many years trying to go with him to a restaurant or pub, or trying to enjoy some kind of experience of social life outside the home. That was virtually impossible, even where cigarette smoking was supposedly banned and ventilation was in place. So, I really want to add my support to those of your Lordships who have reminded us of what the experts have to say. In spite of modern developments in ventilation systems, I do not believe that they are good enough to warrant supporting such an amendment.
	I also want to make a point about the strength of medical evidence. Yes, it is true that there are statistics and damn lies, and so on. Yet we must recognise that while there may well be much diversity of opinion in the research community, it is really time to accept that the balance of medical opinion is very clear on this subject—that passive smoking costs lives. In fact, I think we can agree that we are losing one life every week in this country because of passive smoking. We have to listen to what the medical profession is telling us.
	My final point is that I am delighted that the Government took time to consult fully last summer and that the Government strengthened the Bill. I do not feel that we should hang our heads in any way about the development of the Bill. I am so proud that we are here today discussing the potential step forward in public health that this Bill represents. Cancer is the single biggest cause of health concern in this country. If we can make smoking in enclosed public places a thing of the past, it will be a huge benefit to all of us in this country. I am not just talking about non-smokers, but smokers who would like to give up—and do not forget that the majority of smokers would very much like to give up. There is nothing worse than sitting in a pub watching all your mates having a fag when you are trying to give up. I have had experience of that.
	Please can we reject the amendment today? Please can we make this Bill as strong as possible and as enforceable as possible? Let us not argue any further about the strength of medical evidence on this subject.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, listening to the debate, I am struck by the fact that relatively few of those who oppose the amendment are prepared to discuss the important issue of choice. I was not sure how my mind would end up on this, but my instinct at the beginning of the debate was to support the amendment.
	I do not need any lessons from anyone on the dangers of smoking and lung cancer. At the end of my first year at university I had a pleural effusion and spent 12 weeks in hospital. At the end of that period, the professor of thoracic surgery who had looked after me said, "Do you smoke?", and I said, "Yes, I do". He said, "How many?", and I said, "I do not know; I suppose 20 or 25 a day". He said, "You should not". I said, "Obviously my father has been talking to you and saying that this is a good opportunity to get the boy off smoking". He said, "No, I swear to you that I have not talked to your father at all about it. One of our students in the university"—this was in Newcastle, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, knows this story—"has just written a thesis where he claims to have found a connection between smoking and lung cancer". This was in 1950. He said, "I have not been through it properly myself yet, but I think it is extraordinarily impressive. You have finished the first year of a science degree and you will understand most of it. I will give you the thesis to read". I read it in bed, and I was so horrified that I said, "I shall from this day stop smoking". I have never had a cigarette since the day I put down that thesis in 1950. I do not need any lessons on the danger of smoking and lung cancer.
	I was hugely puzzled by the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that most of us here were born before 1955 and were brought up in smoke-filled rooms but we are all here. That seemed to me a good argument for claiming that passive smoking does not kill 100 per cent of those who are exposed to it. It was a very strange argument. I detest smoke-filled rooms; I find them most unattractive and most irritating. When it comes to whether I believe that passive smoking is dangerous or not dangerous, or over-dangerous or only marginally dangerous, and I have to choose between my noble friend Lord Wakeham and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on the evidence that I have read my mind comes rather towards the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I understand very much the dangers of passive smoking.
	That brings me back to the amendment. Few noble Lords in the debate have referred to choice and liberalism. There are so many things in our lives in this world that we tolerate that are dangerous; for example, alcohol and dangerous sports. I could go through a whole list of things that we tolerate. The noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, has proposed this amendment, which I think is worth giving a try. It could work, if there are properly physically separated areas, and if there is proper ventilation. It is no use noble Lords saying that ventilation may not work. The Act, if this were agreed, would say that there would have to be a ventilation system. It is worth while us giving this a try. I suspect that we shall be talking about smoking and smoking bans for decades. This will just be the first stage of it. Therefore, I think it would make sense for your Lordships to agree to accept this amendment as a first step forward. If it does not work, at some future time we or our successors can come back to this issue and negate the effects of this amendment. I hope that your Lordships will give it a try.

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Cancer Research UK. It is the biggest cancer charity in the world and it employs more than 3,000 scientists, doctors and nurses, mostly in this country but also abroad.
	I was very interested in some of the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that in fact doctors are not always right. Of course, that is absolutely true. I do, though, draw a distinction between doctors and negligence in hospital—when they are taking firm action in operations, anaesthetics, drug giving, and so on—and those who are doing research. When it comes to the scientists and researchers, it is the body of opinion that matters. It is also the credibility of the individuals who do the research, produce their reports and have their work peer-reviewed. Cancer Research UK has recently had two Nobel Prize winners: Sir Paul Nurse and, as of Saturday, in the Queen's Birthday Honours, Sir Tim Hunt.
	I want to address the very narrow point made by my noble friend Lord Jopling on ventilation. Cancer Research UK is absolutely convinced, and its research shows, that ventilation systems may remove the smell of smoke but they cannot effectively remove the harmful chemicals that it contains. Levels of air flow equivalent to those produced by tornadoes and wind tunnels, would be needed for ventilation systems to remove the smoke effectively.
	On a practical basis, systems can cost tens of thousands of pounds to install, and they are difficult and costly to maintain. This can be a particular burden for non-profit-making private members clubs, and others. Reports have shown that many proprietors leave their ventilation systems switched off, because the running costs are so high. Recent research in venues in Sydney, Australia, has shown that designated no-smoking areas in hospitality venues provide at best partial protection, and at worst no protection at all, against the damaging effects of second-hand smoke. I have all the references for what I have said, but I will not bore the House with that right now.
	If it is a question of choice, then ventilation certainly has to work. I am absolutely convinced that it does not.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I had not intended to speak, because of my voice. However, I disobeyed medical orders—my own—to speak in this debate, because it is such an important topic. I also had not expected that on the very first amendment we would be talking about the Economic Affairs Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Since, however, a discussion on that committee has occupied a certain amount of time in this debate—it is not a short debate but a quite long debate—it might be worth pointing out to your Lordships that of the 13 members of that committee, two were former Chancellors of the Exchequer, two professors of economics, and six, possibly seven, had links to commerce and industry. Not one member, however, had any professional experience in medicine, nursing or public health.
	Furthermore, the committee appears to have overlooked evidence that demonstrates the harmful effects of passive tobacco smoke. I want briefly to mention one or two people who gave evidence. The first is Caroline Flint, who was then the Minister for public health. In relation to exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, she quoted the study which found that in adults lung cancer is up 24 per cent, an increased risk of heart disease is up 25 per cent, and that the risk of heart disease increases substantially even at low levels of exposure to second-hand smoke. Perhaps more significantly—much has been made of this, albeit statistical, evidence, and two of the expert advisers to the committee were statisticians—the committee heard evidence from Sir Richard Peto, one of the most eminent epidemiological statisticians in the whole country. He said that, if there was proportionality, you would expect to get up to a 20 per cent excess from inhaled environmental tobacco smoke. He said that that was what you saw in the average of all studies. So I think that the composition of the committee, and perhaps the views of the chairman, eminent though they all are and excellently written though the report is, may be slightly biased.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I was not going to go with the argument that my medical colleagues have already put across in case I was accused of colluding with my fellow medics.
	It is true that doctors make mistakes, but I defy anyone to produce evidence that, on balance, they do more harm than good—I look forward to receiving that evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It seems to me that those who are against the Bill accept the evidence that suggests that there is genuine harm not only from smoking but from second-hand smoke. They might not accept the level of the ill effects but they accept that there is harm.
	So the argument now concerns choice and whether effective ventilation can be put in place to separate smokers and non-smokers. But whose choice are we talking about? Even the Economics Affairs Committee report states that the majority of the population by far is in favour of legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places. When it comes to ventilation, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, gave the evidence: the kind of ventilation required to remove even 90 per cent of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke would be equivalent to that found in a wind tunnel. That is why ventilation is not being implemented in Italy and other countries where it was thought that it would work, and the cost would be prohibitive. So those who argue on the basis of choice and of ventilation being effective do not have a cogent argument. I shall not rehearse the health argument. I said before Second Reading that it is rather like burying your head in the sand. I was challenged on that, but that is what it is and I do not need to go over that argument.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I got asthma 12 years ago. We have heard numerous noble Lords talking about passive smoking and about how it can be harmful in certain ways but not always necessarily so. I am the only person here who can give practical examples of what happens to a person in my position. If I am in a car on a motorway travelling at 70 miles an hour with the windows closed and the ventilation turned off and a car overtakes me, and I can see not only that it is exceeding the speed limit but that the driver is smoking a cigar, I will have an asthma attack. I will have to take Ventolin as well as numerous other things. If my windows are open, it is likely that I will have to stop and that the paramedics will have to come very quickly indeed as I will be very ill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who is sitting in his place, has known this in the past when he used to smoke cigars. Passive smoking is a killer. It can kill. It could kill me. I am led to believe that one in five children nowadays has to use an inhaler because of asthma and passive smoking. We are also ignoring them today, as it is the quality of their lives as well as ours. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, refers to definitely separated areas. What happens when the doors open? My definition of a smoking area and a non-smoking area has always been that the non-smoking area is a place where smoke is present but smokers are not.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am not a smoker, but it is important to resist the advance of the nanny state. It is a matter of individual choice, and it is important that the amendment should be accepted.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise to sum up on behalf of our Front Bench on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, presented me with a problem because I wish to start by putting on record my genuine and long-held admiration for my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston. In the past 25 years, he is one of the people whose speeches I have followed with great care; they were always of great interest to me when he was expanding on liberalism and the need for liberals to stand up for unpopular subjects. I am sorry to be the person on the Front Bench with whom he disagrees.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked about the Liberal view, and rightly cited the actions of my colleagues in the Scottish Executive. The liberal view was best put by John Stuart Mill in chapter three of On Liberty, when he said:
	"Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people".
	As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made clear, the evidence on passive smoking is becoming clearer all the time. I accept that some of the criticism of the Economic Affairs Committee has perhaps been overstated, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, it is becoming increasingly evident from research that passive smoking has a harmful effect. I do not wish to go back over the arguments on ventilation because they have been adequately explained by others this afternoon, but I shall return to the question of choice.
	In our social life people are now becoming not only used to not smoking in public spaces, but are increasingly expectant that public spaces will be non-smoking. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, graphically showed, there are some people for whom there is no choice but to enter a public place to partake of an enjoyable social life with other people. There is always the choice for somebody who wishes to smoke to go outside, and increasingly they do so. Two weeks ago I was in Ireland where an unambiguous complete ban has been implemented. It is fair to say that it has been successful mostly because of its simplicity and clarity. Has it done irreparable harm to the social life of the Irish people? Absolutely not. There is no evidence of that whatever. In fact, it has possibly made it better. Pubs are now convivial places to which people go to enjoy extremely good food, and to which they can take children. The smoking ban has changed the nature of half of them.
	There is a danger in my noble friend's amendment, in that it allows the potential to use the provision of food as a means of getting round the regulations. It thereby sets up and causes health inequalities which now exist, but may well be exaggerated if we have a loophole in the future over whether or not somewhere provides food and, if it does, what its means are.
	To those who have talked about public opinion and, in particular, the nanny state, I say that it is increasingly evident that the private sector is well ahead of us on this. More and more coffee shops and restaurant chains are seeking to change their ways, way ahead of any legislation. Today's vote—as my colleagues will hope—to keep the Bill as it is will not be detrimental to choice or the economy. It will, however, make an important difference to addressing health inequalities. That is a fundamental role of the state.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I was at school during the war, and about the only thing I learnt—because we were distracted by the probability of getting killed—was how to smoke. So I am rather sad that the one thing I learnt at school should now be so heinously voted against. My colleague's amendment is sensible and reasonable. I do not see why we should be killjoys in what we are doing today.
	Of course, no one pretends that smoking is good for you but, if it gives pleasure to people, we should not takes their pleasure away.

Lord Warner: My Lords, before turning to the amendment's deficiencies, I must, on behalf of the Government, respond to one or two of the points made during what I can only describe as almost a Second Reading debate.
	The provisions in Part 1 are based on robust evidence and the management of risk to health from second-hand smoke. Of course, important issues such as personal liberty and the regulation of business have been important in framing this policy. The risk to health, however, is the driving force behind this Bill. That is, ironically, the vital point that the Select Committee on Economic Affairs seems to gloss over in a slightly cavalier fashion.
	The evidence of the health risks of second-hand smoke is now extremely well established. The single medical expert that the committee sought evidence from was indeed Professor Sir Richard Peto, who has already been described as a distinguished medical epidemiologist. He told the committee in his evidence that:
	"The definite statement is that some people are killed by breathing other people's smoke".
	The risk level is set out in the two reports of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, of which Professor Sir Richard Peto is a member. In its 2004 report, the scientific committee concluded that there is an estimated overall 24 per cent increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke and a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease. As a result, the committee advised that,
	"second-hand smoke represents a substantial public health hazard".
	It was not just Caroline Flint who said that. She repeated that evidence of a committee, one of the members of which gave evidence to the Select Committee.
	A number of noble Lords have, I suggest, rather pooh-poohed the evidence that I tried to set out on behalf of the Government in Committee. The evidence base is recognised not just in this country but internationally, not least by the 168 nations that are signatories to the World Health Organisation's framework convention on tobacco control. The evidence on the risk of second-hand smoke comes from across the world, and has been scrutinised and reviewed in great depth. The literature base is substantial and the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer report, Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking, published in 2004, reviewed all the evidence of the health risks associated with smoking and second-hand smoke. It is over 1,400 pages long. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, whatever people choose to say.
	A number of people, including the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have asked for choice and fair play. The Government are very interested in securing fair play for all those who suffer at the hands of second-hand smoke, such as all those with medical conditions like lung cancer, heart disease, asthma attacks, childhood respiratory disease and sudden instant death syndrome. Those are not myths; they are the facts of life in our country regarding people's exposure to second-hand smoke.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, drew attention to the fact that his Select Committee's report was unanimous. I suppose that most noble Lords would pay tribute to his success as a Chief Whip in the past. I am not altogether surprised that he managed to achieve a unanimous report. He also drew attention, as have other noble Lords, to the fact that public bans on smoking may mean more smoking in the home.
	Let me give the House the evidence on that. International experience provides no evidence to support the view that smoke-free legislation will encourage more people to smoke at home; we know that bans encourage smokers to give up or to reduce the number of cigarettes that they smoke, which is a beneficial secondary effect. We also know that seven out of 10 people who smoke say that they want to give up. We have assessed the impact that a ban on smoking in public places would have in reducing smoking prevalence: up to 650,000 people would be affected, which would, thereby, have a beneficial impact of reducing smoking at home. Indeed, evidence from New York suggests that 100,000 people have quit smoking since the ban was introduced there. Recent research, reported by the Royal College of Physicians in the publication Going smoke-free points to a statistically significant increase in the percentage of smokers who banned smoking in their own home after smoke-free laws were introduced.
	Important research was published on 16 June in the Irish Medical Times, which reported a household survey that was conducted in Ireland before and after the introduction of smoke-free laws. Before the ban, 58 per cent of people allowed smoking in their homes, but after the workplace legislation came into effect, that figure fell to 50 per cent. The evidence points in absolutely the opposite direction as regards smoking in the home to that stated by a number of noble Lords.
	Perhaps I can correct the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who cited the Chief Medical Officer's failure to take up his suggestion about conducting a study among airline pilots. The Chief Medical Officer has responded that he did not think that that would be helpful, because the research proposed by the noble Lord would not have resulted in a study of a scientific calibre that could be relied on; there were good grounds for not accepting the helpful suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I think that a few words were omitted there: "could be relied on to give the answer I want".

Lord Warner: My Lords, if that is in the Chief Medical Officer's letter, I would be glad to see it.
	Amendment No. 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, paves the way for the new clause in Amendment No. 2, which allows premises that serve food to continue to allow smoking if certain conditions are fulfilled. The scope of the new clause is wide. It would allow smoking not only in pubs that serve food, but also in cafes and restaurants, and even in schools, hospitals and offices that have canteens. In fact, absolutely anywhere that served any food would be exempted provided that it met the specified conditions. I find it hard to believe that the noble Lords who tabled the amendment really intend to exempt all the office blocks with a canteen, yet that might be the effect. Despite explaining that unintended consequence during Grand Committee, the amendment has been retabled unchanged.
	As far as the Government are concerned, allowing smoking in premises that serve food has never been an option. It was not put forward in the Labour Party's manifesto and it was not offered as an option in the free vote at Report stage in the other place. I recognise that the noble Lord has tried to put in place certain safeguards in his new clause. However, as I said during Grand Committee, I am not at all persuaded that those will really provide protection for workers or the public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. For example, the amendment provides no clarity on what is meant by,
	"physically separated smoking and no-smoking areas".
	Does the noble Lord propose that some kind of wall should separate those areas? Should there be closing doors between them?
	There is very clear evidence, as a number of noble Lords have said, that ventilation does not provide a solution to eliminating the health risks associated with second-hand smoke. Based on evidence, the Government do not recognise that ventilation in any form provides a solution to the health risks associated with second-hand smoke. Noble Lords cited the often quoted research conducted at the European Commission Joint Research Centre's INDOORTRON facility, which found that,
	"'wind tunnel' like rates or other high rates of dilution ventilation would be expected to be required to achieve pollutant levels close to ambient air limit values".
	I recognise that a number of us like alfresco eating, but I suggest that most people would not choose to have their food in a wind tunnel.
	Research that further demonstrates the lack of efficacy of ventilation was published in January 2003 by the Health and Safety Authority and the Office of Tobacco Control in the Republic of Ireland. It states:
	"Research suggests that presently available ventilation technology . . . is unsatisfactory for controlling worker exposure to ETS. Air cleaning is similarly problematic. Of proposed new technology, displacement ventilation is viewed as having the potential for a 90 per cent reduction in ETS levels but even this would still leave exposure levels 1500 to 2500 times the acceptable risk level for hazardous air pollutants".
	Furthermore, any requirement for ventilation would be significantly costly—a point eloquently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—and, given the lack of effectiveness, it would be a burden for business that simply could not be justified.
	The new clause proposes that,
	"no employee is required to work in any smoking area".
	My noble friend Lord Faulkner made a good point about that, although a number of noble Lords contested it. I ask the House to consider whether it is really practical and whether it would be fair to ask employees to make that choice if, for example, they felt that their job would be at risk if they refused. Indeed, taking the scenario further, what would happen in a premises serving food where no member of staff was prepared to expose himself to harmful second-hand smoke? Would the dirty plates stack up? Would members of staff be coerced into working in the smoking area? I do not believe that this provision is practical. As I set out, I believe that this amendment would create more problems than it would solve, and it has absolutely no support from the Government.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, this has been a long debate. I believe that 18 or 19 noble Lords have participated, so I do not think that it would be a good idea for me to go through each speech. I shall make four simple points. The first is about passive smoking. I shall not make a long speech, because the two sides of the argument have been well set out. It is worth noting that over the past couple of months a number of responsible newspapers have published substantial articles querying the arguments about the extent of the danger from passive smoking, which have not been effectively rebutted. In assessing risk, the Economic Affairs Select Committee was surely right to state that the size of the risk does not seem to be very great and that therefore the reaction of the Government does not seem to be proportionate. That was all that it said. It did not suggest that the basis of the argument was ill founded; it simply said that statistically the evaluation of risk was limited.
	I find it extraordinary to be told that ventilation is hopeless and that nothing can be achieved by it. I find that difficult to believe. Although people involved in ventilation may be biased, I receive letters from them saying that that is not the case. As a number of noble Lords have said, techniques are improving all the time.
	My amendment is quite limited. It is not very ambitious. As smokers or people who are in favour of choice, we accept the abolition of smoking in public places and on all forms of transport. I am not trying to turn the clock back, but I am trying to have a bit of toleration and less draconian measures. I was horrified when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, perhaps in a slip of the tongue, said that he would like to employ such a measure in the home as well. Presumably, inspectors will visit homes every day with "smokometers" or whatever.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we are not discussing that issue today. We are discussing this amendment.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, the Minister dealt with ventilation and separation. It seems common sense to separate two rooms physically. It is perfectly true that the cost might be high, but the opportunity should be there. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has moved on this: perhaps he thought that he would be shot at and so had better shift. He gave a colourful example of a poor, wretched 19 year-old Polish girl—I thought that Poland was famous for producing plumbers—being bullied into going into the smoking room and exposing herself to danger. Of course, it is true that people will break laws. Do not forget that the manager or owner of a restaurant or pub is responsible for not doing what has been described, although in some cases he or she might. But I do not think that the possibility of someone breaking a law is an argument against a law. That does not fit.

Lord Warner: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the point that I made? As currently drafted, the amendment would provide for virtually anywhere that serves food to be exempt. That is a critical point.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the intention is directed at restaurants and pubs. Neither I nor my noble friend Lord Steel would necessarily claim legal drafting expertise, but I am sure that it would be possible to narrow the amendment. Of course, I certainly was not thinking of dividing school canteens into two, although that possibility may exist under certain wording. However, I would think that school canteens come under local authorities. Therefore, this would not apply.
	Finally, sometimes individuals choose to do things that perhaps they should not. But we should have the right to choose. This is about freedom and the right to choose one's own lifestyle. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 221.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

European Council: June 2006

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with permission, I would like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council held in Brussels on 15 and 16 June. I would like to thank Chancellor Schuessel and the Austrian Government for their arrangements for the summit and for the way in which they conducted their presidency.
	"There were two parts to this Council. On the constitutional treaty, it was agreed that there would have to be a further period of reflection, because at present there is no consensus on how to proceed. A Europe of 25, not 15, soon to become 27, and in time enlarged still further, needs a modern set of rules to function effectively. Around 15 states have ratified this treaty, but of course, there have been the No votes in France and Holland. As a result, others, including the United Kingdom, have not proceeded with ratification. The German presidency, in the first half of 2007, will therefore consult member states and present a report to the European Council. Decisions will then be taken by the end of 2008. But it was made crystal clear that, in line with last year's conclusions, there can be no presumption about the outcome of this discussion.
	"The bulk of the conclusions of the Council, however, deal with the specific issues of most immediate concern to Europe's citizens. One of the key outcomes of a positive attitude towards Europe on the part of Britain was the election of President Barroso to the Commission. I welcome thoroughly his commitment to the Council to transmit direct to national parliaments all new Commission proposals and consultation papers and to take due consideration of their views. This is an important boost to a long-held British concern over subsidiarity.
	"In addition, on better regulation, the Commission has already announced the withdrawal of some 70 pieces of legislation. The European Council invited the Commission to report by early 2007 on further progress—and, in particular, asked the Commission to make proposals by that time on how to reduce administrative burdens on businesses by 25 per cent. This, again, is a central British objective, on which we built alliances with other partners.
	"On the single market, the Council welcomed the agreement on the services directive; welcomed agreement on the competitiveness and innovation programme; and looked forward to the Commission's forthcoming review of the single market and proposals for completing it. The services directive, in particular, is expected to deliver some 600,000 jobs across the EU and add around €31 billion to the EU economy. I pay tribute to the work of British MEPs from both the Party of European Socialists and the European People's Party in securing the compromise necessary to allow it to pass.
	"The Council agreed a number of specific measures and initiatives to combat illegal immigration, designed to strengthen borders while improving co-operation with some of the main source countries of migrants and refugees. In particular, the Council agreed to implement regional protection pilot projects to protect refugees in their region of origin and therefore avoid the need for mass migration. We also agreed to intensify work on readmission agreements, so that across Europe failed asylum seekers can be more easily returned.
	"On energy, another of the Hampton Court initiatives, we welcomed and agreed to take forward proposals for an external energy policy, developed jointly by Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative, and the Commission. One of the priorities will be developing strategic partnerships with the main producer and transit countries, including an agreement with Russia.
	"The Council also agreed declarations on the western Balkans, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, Africa, Lebanon and Timor-Leste.
	"Finally, on climate change, the European Council committed itself to pursuing, in all the relevant multilateral organisations, an international goal consistent with the objective of a maximum global temperature increase of two degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
	"This was a European Council which focused on the practical policy-driven agenda which the UK has long advocated. It demonstrated yet again the benefits of positive engagement with Europe. I commend the outcome to the House".
	That concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Rarely has an EU summit attracted so little publicity, in glaring contradiction to the title of the first chapter of the presidency conclusions, which is "Europe Listens". Where is the evidence that EU leaders have listened in any way to the concerns of people about the trend towards more regulation and integration? Will the noble Baroness confirm that this summit agreed to more integration on immigration, asylum, criminal procedure, industrial policy, consumer protection and foreign policy? Where is all the rethinking in that?
	Was the noble Baroness the Leader of the House as surprised as I was that the conclusions made no reference to the rejection of the constitutional treaty by the people of the Netherlands and France, except in the Newspeak of paragraph 43 of the conclusions that:
	"Two Member States have been unable to ratify . . . [but] It is hoped that this process will be completed in line with the conclusions of June 2005".
	Is that the UK Government's view? Has nothing changed in the so-called "period of reflection"? The conclusions blandly declare that,
	"citizens remain committed to the European project".
	Is not the problem that the Brussels definition of the EU project is miles apart from the wishes of millions of EU and British citizens?
	The conclusions call for "concrete results" in achieving what the EU constitution proposed, but European electors rejected, by noodling inside the present system. Where is the listening there? Is that also the UK Government's view? The conclusions call for a further report on a constitutional treaty in spring next year and necessary steps to legislation in 2008. Is that the UK Government's view? Do the Government want a new treaty?
	I am fully aware that no Government can bind their successor, but I hope that the noble Baroness will know the answer to this question. Is the commitment to resurrecting a treaty supported, not only by the Prime Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
	Finally, will the Minister accept that there must be a referendum on any EU constitutional treaty and that the manifesto pledge to the electorate before the last election that they would be consulted must be good for the whole Parliament?
	Of course, there were things we supported at the summit, such as action on climate change, but what discussion was there of ensuring energy security? Was any concern expressed about a potential 60 per cent dependence on Russian gas?
	We very much support the enlargement of the EU, so we strongly welcome the accession talks with Turkey. For too long, this proud and great nation has been toyed with by the EU as if we were still living in 1683 and not a 21st century in which a model of secularist Islam offers a key to a more stable world.
	We have long supported greater openness and transparency at EU Ministers' meetings. Supporting that was a rare success for the Prime Minister over one of his Cabinet colleagues. The Minister may not know the answer to this question, but perhaps he could ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to open up UK Cabinet meetings in the same way. How fascinating that would be.
	Finally, I turn to regulation and criminal justice. On regulation, was it not a bitter disappointment that the best the summit could agree was that it might be possible to ask the Commission to make proposals in 2007 about the possibility of setting targets to reduce regulation? What a sad outcome, when businesses are groaning today about EU red tape. How can we have any confidence in a process that pays lip-service to deregulation but says that the acquis communautaire cannot be touched?
	On criminal justice, in 2003 the Europe Minister, Mr Hoon, said that ending the veto could,
	"change fundamental principles of our legal system . . . which we are not prepared to accept".
	So why do the Government now apparently have an open mind? Would it not be rash indeed to abolish the veto now? Will the Minister give a guarantee that Britain will not give up its veto in this vital area?
	The Government, over the past few weeks, have said that the system that they have been running for nine years is already in a dysfunctional mess at home, with Ministers making open attacks on civil servants, police and judges. Surely it would be madness to add to the mess by inviting European dictation to those same civil servants, police and courts. The ultimate responsibility to deal with terrorism must lie with the British Government. Abolishing the veto in these areas was a key part of the European constitution. Does the Minister understand that reintroducing changes such as these without a referendum is completely unacceptable? When will the Government take a stand against the integrationist tide and hold firm for the real alternative option, a flexible Europe? The last year has shown how Europe can live without a new constitution.
	However sweet the Austrian wine, is it not high time to cut through the dinner-table complacency, state categorically that the constitutional programme is finished, and that the UK will play no part in smuggling it in by the backdoor and will insist on the right of a referendum for the British people?

Lord McNally: My Lords, when such an amiable fellow as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, delivers such a negative and sour response to a European Council, surely it is time for the Government to realise that the Conservatives, for the time being at least, are a lost cause with regard to Europe. They long to wound, they fear to strike—and we shall continue to get statements, such as this one from their official spokesman, which at no time explain how an organisation that has expanded from six to 25 members and with ambitions to expand to 27 should conduct itself or have a rule book.
	Have the Government considered publishing a Green Paper, taking from the constitution the areas that they think could be brought forward? Let us have a debate about that, because otherwise we shall have either the Government reacting to what is going on in Germany or elsewhere across the channel or the Conservatives continuing to bring forward these hobgoblins to scare us about what is going on. We have to realise that the global context in which Europe exists is changing rapidly. We will have a world of Chinese, Indian and, perhaps, Brazilian economic superpowers. The idea that we can rest comfortably on a Conservative Party "Stop the world, we want to get off" approach is plainly ludicrous. Let us take the debate to them on the grounds of giving Europe a rule book that will work.
	On the rest of the communiqué, we welcome the businesslike approach, the recognition of subsidiarity and the commitment to reducing burdens on business. We were a little bemused, as was the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by news stories headed "UK U-turns on open meetings". How we ever got ourselves into that position, I do not know. It would be reassuring to know that the Government are committed, as these Benches are, to far greater transparency in the way Europe does business. We believe—as we thought the Government believed—that that would be one way of preventing the Conservatives and their allies in the media misleading the British people about the reality of doing business in Europe.
	Let us get the realities about the approach to immigration into the open. If we are to deal with immigration we need specific co-operation in Europe and British activity in areas such as north Africa. Of course, we have naval capacity in Gibraltar at that end of the Mediterranean. Is it proposed that Britain should get physically involved in control activities? Are we talking directly to the north African Governments concerned about this problem? The Council agreed to declarations on the western Balkans, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, Africa, Lebanon and Timor-Leste. Does anybody on the Official Opposition Benches believe that Britain would have any impact on any of these global problems without the strength and authority we get from membership of the EU?
	If we want to play a part in the 21st century, we will have to do so with our natural allies in a European Union that works. That is why we have also supported enlargement. Would the Minister not agree that the British people need reminding again and again of Europe's most amazing transformation into a Europe committed to democracy and the process of law? This has been undertaken—from Spain, Portugal and Greece onwards—by a European Union which has demonstrated to the world that it is possible to settle even the most intractable differences by political process. That is what we should all encourage.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin with the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about his surprise at the negative and sour response of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is generally negative in our debates about the European Union, but his jokes are usually a little better than they were today. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised a number of issues, including regulation, the purpose of the European Union and the constitutional treaty. I will deal with each of them in turn.
	The Statement said that there are proposals for the withdrawal of 70 pieces of legislation, and there will be further work on the regulation issue in the coming years. On the European Union more generally, part of the importance of our being part of the European Union is clearly to get added value in areas where we can work together. I think that the examples given in the documents coming out of the Council are important indeed. Migration is one example, and the noble Lord asked about criminal justice and the use of the veto in the criminal justice area. Migration and criminal justice are issues in which we need to get the added value that comes from working with our European Union partners. We have made it clear that we are able to opt in or opt out of specific proposals on criminal justice. The noble Lord knows well that we need partnerships in the areas of terrorism and drugs. Those are global problems with global reach. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke about the global context in which Europe exists and the fact that the context is changing rapidly. These are not issues we can tackle alone.
	The issue of energy security remains important. I welcome the commitment that the noble Lord made to enlargement, particularly with respect to Turkey. As he will recall, we began accession negotiations with Turkey under our presidency. As for a flexible Europe, that is precisely what the Lisbon agenda and the Hampton Court agenda are designed to deliver.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about the possibility of a Green Paper. That is not a matter that I have heard discussed but I will take it back to my colleagues. However, I recognise that we will need institutional change to manage a Europe of 25 or 27. The institutions that we have in place were put in place for a much smaller organisation.
	The Government's position on the constitutional treaty has not changed. We have consistently said that we will hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty if there is a constitution to vote on. There is not one at the moment.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the issue of transparency. My understanding is that we, the United Kingdom Government, raised concerns about moving too quickly on the transparency issue. It is not that we are against transparency, and indeed the Council agreed an overall policy on it—the main effect of which will be to open to the public all deliberations on co-decided legislation and in other areas. The Council also agreed to assess the impact on the effectiveness of the Council's work after a six-month period.
	I think we are all agreed that we need a proper system of managed migration. This is not just a bilateral issue, or an area in which the United Kingdom can discuss with our partners on a one-to-one basis. What we are doing at the European Union level is extremely important.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the positives need to be stressed. What we have managed to achieve from the European Union in the spread of democracy and the rule of law would not have been deliverable without the European Union. The peace and security which we see in Europe today is very much a result of that.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, just what is it that the Government hope will come out of the deliberative and consultative process in which Germany is about to become engaged? What exactly is the Government's objective with reference to the constitution of Europe? Is it not about time, in the interests of transparency, that the Prime Minister came clean with the British people and stated clearly what is the Government's policy?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know from reading the presidency conclusions that there is an ongoing process within the European Union. The Council agreed to extend the "period of reflection", and for a report to be presented to the June 2007 Council assessing the institutional situation and exploring possible ways forward. It is a little premature to ask what the British Government's view will be a year before we come to that point.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which on the whole I welcome. I was pleased to see that the Statement referred approvingly to paragraphs 37 and 38 of the presidency conclusions, concerning the involvement of national parliaments in the community's policy-making processes—in particular, the Commission's own,
	"commitment to make all new proposals and consultation papers directly available to national parliaments",
	which is very welcome, and inviting national parliaments to react,
	"to improve the process of policy formulation".
	I am, however, a little disappointed by the weakness of language in the presidency conclusions that:
	"The Commission is asked to duly consider comments by national parliaments".
	At our recent COSAC in Vienna we strongly emphasised that the Commission would need to provide a considered response in a reasonable timeframe, which was in fact taken up by the Austrian presidency. The Commission would do well to "consider", but there is not much point in considering what national parliaments say if it does not actually respond to them. Therefore I ask Her Majesty's Government, through the Minister, whether they would insist that the Commission take that seriously. Otherwise, it will too easily slide off the hook and make mere anodyne comments without due consideration, or even within that reasonable timeframe.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will know that the UK Government have pushed for the involvement of national parliaments in these processes. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord about the need for consultation processes to be meaningful. What I take from it is that this is a step-by-step process. We will continue to keep this under review, as I am very mindful of the points that the noble Lord has made.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, we must all have been struck by the contrast between the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. That is perhaps the answer to those airily talking of the faint possibility of a Liberal Democrat-Conservative pact after some future general election.
	It is fair to say that the consensus is that this was effectively a non-event. Such a bland document will hardly merit a footnote in the history book. For example, nothing of any provocation was said. Certainly, there was no mention in the paragraph on Turkey that it is currently barring access to its ports by a member country of the Union—namely, Cyprus. It is as if the communiqué was seeking to avoid any form of controversy, though I do not blame the Austrian presidency for that.
	I want briefly to raise what the Prime Minister said about a new set of rules being needed for a union when it reaches 27. Is it the Government's view that this new set of rules will be just technical, on new weighting on voting in the European Parliament, for example, or new weighting in the Council? Or, is it something of greater significance? The answer may give us some pointer as to whether that new package will merit a future referendum.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to my noble friend that bland is sometimes good—certainly, from my point of view. On the issue of a new set of rules, clearly we will need institutions that work better as the European Union expands. We are committed to working with European Union partners on that reform process. It is too early to say at this point what reform is needed, and it is far too early to speculate on the outcome of that work and whether there might need to be a referendum. My right honourable friend Jack Straw, in his previous role, in March 2006 said:
	"I am not going to anticipate a rather abstract possibility. I certainly agree that a referendum in respect of this constitution was appropriate".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/06; col. 564.]
	We have to see how things develop.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for the Statement. I was struck not so much by the contrast between the statements by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, but the contrast between the statements by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the opposition spokesman for foreign policy in another place, who made an interesting speech last week of a somewhat different tone.
	I have a couple of questions about the conclusions on enlargement. I noticed that there were three references in the conclusions on enlargement to a concept called "absorptive capacity", rather as if we were branding a form of blotting paper. I gather that was not the intention; the intention was no doubt to construct a large elephant trap into which the luckless applicants for membership would fall. Could I please have from the Government some recognition of the risks of the policy of absorptive capacity? Could they state very firmly—which I believe to be the case—that there has been no addition of a further criterion to the Copenhagen criteria which candidate countries have to fulfil, and that there is no question of some formal requirement being added to those relating to this ghastly blotting paper concept?
	Secondly, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I think that there was a reference to Cypriot vessels going into Turkish ports, but it was written in that usual Euro-jargon that makes it extremely difficult to follow. It insisted that the Turkish Government should respond to the requests that were made last year by the European Union. Did the noble Baroness notice, and will she say something about, another commitment in relation to Cyprus that was not referred to—the commitment to bring north Cyprus closer to the European Union not only in terms of aid but also trade? The Turkish Government have linked those two issues, which is unwise because they are a little bit apples and oranges; one is a strict legal obligation that they must fulfil and the other is a political obligation that the European Union has to fill. Frankly, it sends a very bad message if it is not clear that we are as concerned by the second as we are by the first.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the tone of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Conservative foreign affairs spokesperson in another place, of course splits in the Conservative Party on Europe are not new.
	On the conclusions on enlargement and absorptive capacity, I can confirm that this is not a further criterion. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will know that there are some in the European Union who are sceptical about future enlargement, and they want a greater focus on the EU's ability to absorb new members. It is important to say to the House that the idea of absorption capacity is now more than a decade old, and it has not inhibited the progress of enlargement so far. It is certainly not the intention that it should be a new criterion.
	There is a commitment that northern Cyprus should come closer to the European Union on the issues of aid and trade. I do not have any further information on that, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, knows a lot more about this issue, given his background, than I do. If I can help the House further in any other way, I will of course write and put a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, my noble friend might not be surprised if I were to say that some of us would not on this occasion echo the words of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea in saying that this was a non-event. In a few years' time, the fact that Council meetings will be televised will be seen as a watershed. I know that it is on the back of the fiasco of the constitution, but unfortunately—some of us might think that it is unfortunate—the demos nowadays to a large extent is the television. We ought to reflect that although there are obvious concerns that people have to speak for the television, this House some 20 years ago managed to get over its initial worries about that.
	On the broader question of the constitution, I was one of those who apparently echoed the feelings of Jacques Delors, when he said to his successor, "Please do not call this damn thing the constitution". It is to some extent semantics. Regarding the framework for enlargement, obviously we need to have different rules as we go along. I am even a bit sceptical about a Green Paper; as if there is ever going to be a once-for-all end to what this animal is. It has evolved. Only a few weeks ago, the Conservative Party was very strong on the need to have a really integrated energy approach to the former Soviet Union. That was not really high on the agenda a few months ago. We have all welcomed the results—in the Statement it is referred to as a compromise—on the services directive. As one of those with a trade union background, I was a bit worried about some of the principles of the early drafts of the services directive; so that is welcome.
	It is very good that Europe is not now going to be seen as a secret society. Pragmatic work will go on. Annex 6 notes the importance of the EU-Africa partnership on migration and development. I am quite sure that in 10 years' time that will be seen to be an enormously important topic.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to draw our attention to the importance of having a framework for enlargement. There is still a debate to be had in the European Union about whether we need a statement of values and principles to set out what we stand for. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lea on the importance of transparency, although while I think transparency is important, it is even more important to find new and different ways of communicating what the European Union is about. Using such methods as the internet and podcasts is much more important than having television coverage of what goes on in European Council meetings, for example. Again, my noble friend is right about the importance of the EU-Africa partnership, particularly at the moment with respect to managing the issue of migration.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this summit has certainly been under-reported. I have one question for the Leader of the House concerning the decision to create a pan-European counter-terrorism force, which I understand will proceed apace, with a steering group meeting within a fortnight. As far as I understand it, it will involve the pooling of the police, civil protection and military assets of all 25 nation states, including Britain. That seems to me a very large step. Will Parliament have a say in the creation of this force, how should it operate and what its resources should be?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the aim is to ensure that Europe is contributing fully to global security. We all know what the challenges are; for example, shortfalls in key crisis management capabilities in Europe. We need EU action not only to add value but to be fully coherent. With respect to the opportunity for Parliament to debate this, I am sure that the noble Lord could ask a Question or table a Motion for a short debate if he wishes to do so.

Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The presidency conclusions are full of warm words about enlargement. Does she agree that, after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, there cannot be further enlargement without treaty change, and that without the prospect of treaty change, this gives unfortunate messages to Croatia, in particular, and the nations of the western Balkans, generally? Bearing in mind how long it takes to reach agreement on change, should we not be actively preparing so that if and when those nations are ready to join, the European Union is ready to admit them?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the European Council reaffirmed that the existing commitment on enlargement will be honoured. As I said earlier, enlargement has spread security and prosperity across Europe. The General Affairs and External Relations Council called in December for a debate on further enlargement during 2006. That debate started at the June Council and will continue under the Finnish presidency. We will, of course, actively participate in that. I take entirely the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about the message we send to others in the queue, as it were. He will know, however, that we are very committed to the enlargement process.

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, there are those of us—I am one of them—who are quite pleased if a Council meeting is a non-event. That is not because we do not want anything to happen, but because it is one of the weaknesses of Europe that there always has to be some enormous project—unless there is an enormous project, things go wrong. That is certainly not my view, so I would have no word of criticism on that.
	There remains an institutional issue, on which I would like to hear an even clearer view from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. Transparency is not quite the right word, when one talks about how the Council of Ministers of the European Union should operate. With the peculiar language that was introduced at the beginning of the process, in the Treaty of Rome, the Council of Ministers is in part a legislature. Incidentally, the Commission is, in part, a parliament. It has some of the parliamentary rights that the US Congress has—making proposals, even a monopoly, in theory, of making proposals.
	When you have a legislature, in a democratic context, it is not about transparency, it is an utter necessity that this legislature meets in public and can be checked by the public. Can one be sure that this traditional British position is still upheld, and that nothing occurred at the recent Council meeting which detracts from that understanding of how legislatures should operate?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that certainly my understanding and reading of the conclusions and of what happened at the recent European Council is that accountability remains at the heart of the European Union. I accept entirely the points made by the noble Lord that the Council of Ministers and indeed the Union itself have different and overlapping roles. That makes accountability more rather than less important. The onus, therefore, is on all European Union countries to take these institutional matters—and in particular these accountability matters—very seriously.
	I could not agree more with the noble Lord's first point about the importance of Europe just getting on with its work.

Health Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Lord Naseby: moved Amendment No. 3:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
	"DEFINITIONS OF "ENCLOSED" AND "SUBSTANTIALLY ENCLOSED"
	(1) For the purposes of section 2—
	"enclosed" means having a ceiling or roof and, except for doors, windows and passageways, being wholly enclosed, whether permanently or temporarily;
	"substantially enclosed" means having a ceiling or roof and, except for doors, windows and passageways, being substantially closed, whether permanently or temporarily.
	(2) In determining whether premises are "substantially enclosed", no account is to be taken of openings in which there are doors, windows or other fittings that can be opened or shut.
	(3) Premises shall be taken to be "substantially enclosed" if—
	(a) the opening in the premises has an area, or
	(b) if there is more than one, both or all of those openings have an aggregate area,
	which is less than thirty per cent of the area of the walls, including other structures serving the purposes of walls, which constitute the perimeter of the premises.
	(4) Where an opening is in, or consists of the absence of, such walls or other structures, or a part of them, their area shall be measured for the purposes of subsection (3) as if it included the area of the opening."

Lord Naseby: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is essentially probing in nature. In a sense, it is quite tightly drawn. Since we had a pretty free-ranging debate on the previous amendment, I will keep specific to this particular amendment, in the hope that your Lordships will follow suit. The key point about this amendment is that, originally, the conditions for the erection of any form of building or attachment to premises were on the face of the Bill. It was then withdrawn from the Bill and put into regulations—and, of course, we do not yet know what the regulations are. In addition, we have Clause 4, which gives the Government virtually a blank cheque. That is because they can designate anywhere, in effect, non-smoking.
	In addition, the definition of these attachments has been changed. Originally it was put down, in consultation terms, as 70 per cent of the notional roof and wall area, and now we are told it is to be 50 per cent only of the notional roof and wall area. I am sure the Government will recognise that no one in the commercial world will spend a penny on planning any form of extension or new building, unless they know the conditions beforehand. While the Minister in Grand Committee maintained that the trade was broadly well aware of what the regulations were about, there has been evidence since—particularly, one has to say, from the smaller licensed premises—that it is singularly unaware. That is a concern, because it is the smaller licensed premises—either in the rural or perhaps the more industrialised areas of our country, where perhaps they even have no car park—that will face real problems in providing anything outside the main pub.
	Any trader will almost certainly have to obtain planning permission. It is quite likely that a significant number will have to get listed building consent. If you go for planning permission, at a minimum, that has to go out for consultation, in whatever field you are in. At that point there can be objections, or the committee can decide to delay it for another two months, three months or whatever it may be. Just because you put in for planning permission and you are told your case is coming up in two or three months' time, there is no certainty that you will know at the end of that time whether your proposals have been successful.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister also described the example of Scotland and stated in broad principle that it had been successful. The more one digs, however, the easier it is to see that the big boys were successful and those who hit the most difficulties were the small boys. In addition, since Grand Committee we have heard about the experiences of not just the licensed trade but others with the Licensing Act 2003. We have heard about the genuine difficulties that it has caused by the continually changing interpretations between one local authority and another.
	All this leads one to believe that, if the Government believe in joined-up government, as I genuinely believe they do, one must give the trade time to undertake the changes—there is no argument about the changes going through now; they seem likely to go through. The combination of a failure to provide clarity through essential definitions in the Bill—in other words, they are still in the regulations—and the insistence of Ministers on bringing the smoke-free provisions into force in 2007, one year earlier than was originally proposed, will cause great difficulty. I wish to be objective about this. If 25 per cent of people want to smoke, and if landlords and other owners of licensed premises want to make provision for these customers, it seems only sensible to give them a reasonable length of time in which to do it. My amendment tries to give the Government a means of achieving that.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us either that the regulations are imminent, in which case that is some progress, or, if they are not, perhaps that he will seriously consider whether he is nailing his flag to the mast of the middle of 2007. He will recognise that there are genuine difficulties. Whether it is late 2007 or early 2008 does not really matter: the most important dimension is to get this right and to ensure that smaller publicans, in particular, who do not exist on a very large margin of income, have an opportunity to amend their premises to meet these needs. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: My Lords, this amendment broadly brings the Bill back to the Government's original position, as set out in their consultation document of 20 June 2005—almost exactly a year ago today. Members of the licensing trade believe that the original scheme was less inimical to their profitability and viability and less inimical to the well-being of their customers, 45 per cent of whom apparently smoke to a greater or lesser degree, than the altered formula in the Bill. Why did the Government change their mind?
	A clue to the Government's reasoning emerged in Grand Committee on 24 April, when the Minister extolled the desirability of ensuring "consistency with Scottish legislation". Why should there be such consistency? After all, just a few moments earlier the Minister had spoken of the desirability of allowing the Welsh to make their own decision on what precisely constitutes "enclosed" and "partially enclosed" spaces. Why are the English, alone in the United Kingdom, treated in such a cavalier fashion by this Government, or, perhaps I should say more accurately, in such a Cromwellian fashion?
	If the Government are unwilling to accept this amendment, will they, as an alternative, consider accepting my Amendment No. 46—we are likely to come to it next Monday—which provides for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? Technical though they may be, too much is at stake both in terms of the continued viability of many licensed premises and the comfort and well-being of literally millions of their customers to allow these regulations to be nodded through under the negative procedure.

Lord Warner: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 seeks to put definitions of "enclosed" and "substantially enclosed" into the Bill. The Government cannot accept the amendment for two reasons, which I shall explain in a moment, but, first, perhaps I may clear up where we were before we came forward with this Bill.
	It is true that in the consultation document to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, alluded, we proposed a definition based on that in South Australian legislation, using a figure of 70 per cent but including the roof and wall area in the calculation. There was not strong support for that, but neither was there strong support for any other specific definition. However, we need to set out a clear definition to allow premises owners to understand which parts of their premises are smoke-free. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that a degree of certainty is very important. That is why we decided instead to use the same definition as will operate in Scotland—that is, "substantially enclosed" means walls and equivalents making up more than one half the area of the perimeter walls of the premises.
	As I said in Grand Committee, the Government are satisfied that the right place for this definition is not in the Bill but in regulations. We can see from the way that the amendment is drafted that the definition is likely to be complex and technical therefore we believe that it is best suited to regulations. We also believe that it is important to maintain the flexibility to be able to amend the definition in the unlikely event that problems arise with the initial definition. That will be much easier, of course, if these definitions are in secondary legislation.
	Furthermore, the Bill allows for regulations pertaining to "enclosed" and "substantially enclosed" to be specified by the appropriate national authority. By including a definition in the Bill, we would preclude Wales from being able to define "enclosed" and "substantially enclosed" in a way that best suited its own circumstances. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with this approach. And so that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, does not raise his hopes too much, I should tell him that we are unlikely to be sympathetic to his Amendment No. 46.
	Secondly, the Government have already made it clear that we intend the definitions of "enclosed" and "substantially enclosed" to follow, in general, those used in Scottish legislation. Given that a number of people working in the industry will be operating premises in both England and Wales, I should have thought that they might welcome some consistency in the definition between Scotland and England. That will probably be helpful to the industry. We certainly think it is desirable to be consistent with Scotland in this respect so as to make implementation as straightforward as possible.
	Amendment No. 3 proposes that a place should be considered substantially enclosed if it has a roof or ceiling and an opening, or aggregate openings, of less than 30 per cent of the area of the walls. The Scottish definition, however, refers to less than 50 per cent of the area of the walls being open. As I said, not only do we intend to follow the Scottish model for reasons of consistency but we are also taking into account the comments that we received during the public consultation exercise undertaken last year before publication of the Bill. We believe that 50 per cent is the right measure, as smoke will still linger in places which are more enclosed. A 50 per cent measure is also likely to be more easily understood by those implementing and enforcing the arrangements than 30 or any other percentage.
	I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that our regulations will be published very soon. From the discussions that we have had with Scottish officials, we are not aware of any issues of great concern on this matter in Scotland. However, if the noble Lord would like to write to me about specific concerns, I should be happy to consider them.
	On a technical point relating to Amendment No. 3, although the amendment puts the definition in the Bill, there is no amendment to remove the power to make regulations defining "enclosed" and "substantially enclosed" in Clause 2(5). That means that, in theory, we could make regulations giving a different definition from the one that the amendment would put in the Bill, and that would clearly be absurd and unworkable. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, the noble Lord will not seek to press his amendment.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he explain why the Government believe that there should be consistency between definitions in English and Scottish legislation but not between definitions in English and Welsh or Welsh and Scottish legislation?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I thought that I had explained that there was no common view in the consultation on any particular definition. I set that out very clearly. In those circumstances, we thought that it made more sense to be consistent with Scotland, and that will also help providers of services on either side of Hadrian's Wall, if I may put it that way.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for giving me the opportunity to write to him about some of the issues that have been raised since Grand Committee. I appreciate that offer very much and shall certainly follow it up.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right in a sense. It would be singularly farcical if the measure were identical for England and Scotland but the Welsh Assembly decided to have a separate approach, and the Government may want to consider that.
	The key issue remains the experience in Scotland, where, because a number of licensees happened to be within one local authority area, there was a logjam of planning permissions and all that went with them, such as listed building consent, and then, on top of that, some local authorities decided to change the Licensing Bill provisions. I hope that the Government will take seriously, and reflect upon, that logjam.
	I am not going to press this to a Division this evening. I have made my points, and will continue to make them in writing to the Minister. Given that this is a Health Bill, I hope that the Government will recognise that, if it were the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he would be pulling his hair out by now having realised that it was not exactly joined-up government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Smoke-free premises: exemptions]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 3, line 2, leave out "consumption of alcohol" and insert "sale by retail of alcohol for consumption"

Lord Warner: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. Strictly speaking, licences do not authorise the consumption of alcohol; they authorise the sale of alcohol for consumption. The amendment corrects that minor drafting inaccuracy.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Pendry: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I make no apology for moving this amendment, despite the fact that we have already had a lengthy debate. If my amendment is carried, it would reverse a decision made in the other place. The vote in the other place was free of the Whips. If my amendment is taken to a vote here, it is my understanding that it would similarly be a free vote.
	I am, however, aware that there are some people in this House who do not believe that your Lordships could ever contradict the other place, given the free vote there. In some circumstances, that could well be right. In the amendment before your Lordships today, however, there is a powerful reason why this House should express its opinion, irrespective of the decision in the other place.
	As originally introduced, the Bill enabled Ministers to make regulations exempting the smoke-free provision premises having premises licences or club premises' certificates under the Licensing Act 2003. In that regard, it sought to implement the policy explicitly stated in the Government's 2004 White Paper, Choosing Health and the Labour Party's 2005 election manifesto. I hope to carry my newly discovered comrade, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, with me when I refer to that manifesto. Lest there be some ambiguity, it said:
	"We recognise that many people want smoke-free environments and need regulation to help them get this. We therefore intend to shift the balance significantly in their favour. We will legislate to ensure that all enclosed public places and workplaces other than licensed premises will be smoke-free. The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs"—
	this is the important part for the amendment—
	"the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. However, whatever the general status, to protect employees, smoking in the bar area will be prohibited everywhere".
	As originally drafted, the Bill did not indicate exemptions. Instead, it gave examples of the descriptions of premises that could be exempted by regulations, and the conditions under which they might be exempted. The clause was, however, replaced on Report in another place by the clause now in the Bill, tabled by the current Secretary of State for Health. It specifically prohibits licensed premises—pubs, bars, restaurants and genuine membership clubs—being exempted from the smoke-free provisions by regulations. I believe that that was a mistake, as I now hope to make clear.
	There was no need for this amendment, because Clause 3 enabled Ministers to make, or not make, any regulations they wished, subject to the approval of Parliament. The existing Clause 3 prohibits certain exemptions. It removes a freedom which could easily have been controlled by separating smoking from non-smoking facilities in those premises. It diminishes choice and has been instigated by what I always believed was a basic tenet of the Government; that they espouse choice. It ostracises smokers, leaving them with no enclosed public place in which they can smoke. Inevitably, those who choose to continue to smoke will often do so at home, where children may be present. It invades the freedom of clubs to establish their own rules. That is an important and longstanding freedom. It also happens to ban a club or association of people, such as the Lords and Commons Cigar and Pipe Smokers Club, from a meeting in their own enclosed place, other than in someone else's home.
	As much as I would like my amendment to do, it does not go as far as restating the original Clause 3 of this Bill. That would now probably be too much to ask. My amendment is therefore a compromise. It is of fundamental importance, however. It is concerned with freedom and continuing to enable people, who freely and willingly choose privately to associate with each other, to establish their own rules of association. As the former Health Secretary John Reid explained, the original Clause 3 of the Bill, in so far as it could apply to pubs and bars, sought to provide a degree of balance of rights and choice by enabling a limited provision for smokers. At that time, there was never any question about prohibiting an exemption for genuine membership clubs, recognised as being in a very special position.
	I wish to quote something:
	"The justification for exempting private clubs is that adults choose to become members of such clubs . . . Private clubs are exempted on the basis that their members are adults who choose to sign up to the regulations of that club. They have a say in the running of the club . . . so they have a say in determining whether smoking should be allowed at all or in certain areas. Many clubs already apply rules in that area, including no smoking in bars".
	Those are not my words; they are the words of the already much-quoted Caroline Flint, MP, the current Minister for Public Health, speaking in Standing Committee E on the Bill in another place on 8 December 2005.
	What caused the change of heart and policy? The personal views of the Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt, may have played a strong part, but it has also been claimed that the change in policy was to reflect public opinion. That claim is false. The public have consistently opted for the accommodation of smokers and for choice. The most authoritative poll indicating this was not commissioned by ASH, which wishes a complete ban, or FOREST, which takes the opposite view, but the government-commissioned poll from the Office for National Statistics; not the poll from Norway, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner referred to earlier, but our own Government's poll. In its last annual poll on smoking, the Office for National Statistics' data show that only 31 per cent of people opted for a ban on smoking in public places, but 47 per cent—the majority—would prefer accommodation for smokers in separate areas or rooms. Why, then, was there a sudden change of policy on genuine membership clubs, which are universally recognised, including in legislation, as being in a special position and quite different from retail premises which the public may freely enter?
	It seems that there were two decisive factors, both misguided and wrong. First, anti-smoking activists argue at every opportunity that, by exempting membership clubs, the employees of those clubs would not have the same protection from second-hand smoke as employees of other establishments. That would be easy to deal with, by making it a condition of exemption that no employee should be required to work in a place where smoking is permitted, and by applying the rule that the Government originally promoted of not permitting smoking close to a bar.
	The Government also suggested in their consultation on the proposed smoke-free provisions of the Bill that the regulations made under the Bill might require an annual vote of the membership on the smoking policy in any club. But I suspect that the second factor was, in reality, perhaps more influential: the objection of the large pub groups and operators who argued that to exempt genuine membership clubs would be anti-competitive and that the playing field would not be level as they claimed.
	The fact is that pubs and genuine membership clubs are like apples and pears; they do not operate in the same marketplace. Anyone can walk into a pub, but people cannot walk off the street into a club. There are rules of membership. Very often clubs have distinct affiliations and membership requirements. Many of them are institutions of great local and social importance. Most Members of this House are members of clubs of one kind or another. Some would even regard this place as a club of sorts. It is certainly somewhere where we determine our own rules of operation. Let us not think that all clubs are as exclusive as this place or Boodles, the Reform, the Garrick or White's. There are more than 20,000 clubs throughout the country, many with small membership numbers, that play a vital and invaluable role in the local society for a great many people. People place great store by and take great pride in their ability to participate in the making of their club rules and in managing their club. This Bill starts to dismantle that ability. In my view, that is wrong and should be resisted, particularly by this House.
	The Licensing Act 2003 recognises, as did the previous licensing regime and other legislation, that membership clubs are significantly different from licensed premises. Clubs holding a club premises certificate are run by their members, who choose freely to associate with each other. They are run principally for the benefit of their members under their own rules. There is accountability to the members of the club who determine how the club is managed and operated. They are clubs that are quite separate and distinct from other licensed premises that may be called clubs.
	In the absence of any obligation to impose an absolute prohibition on smoking in order to protect non-smokers, it is for the members of the club with a club premises certificate to determine the smoking policy of the club. We in this House should do whatever we can to make that possible. My amendment would not exempt membership clubs from the smoke-free provisions; it would simply make it possible for them to be exempted by regulations. Any exemption and conditions would be matters for Ministers to determine. I beg to move.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I confess that as a lover of the more delicate nuances of the English language, I was a little dismayed earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, accused me of using sloppy terminology. At least he did not go as far as Disraeli, who referred to Gladstone as someone who was inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity.
	I confess that in referring to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, I should have used a word a little less pejorative than "inconceivable". As I said at the time, I believe that it is remarkable—in fact, astonishing—that, in talking about the effects of second-hand smoke, a report produced by such an outstanding committee of your Lordships' House should include the remark,
	"the main harm, if there is one".
	Today we have heard much about the effects that second-hand smoke may have on those who are exposed to it. The scientific evidence is incontrovertible. In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, there are more than 50 peer-reviewed publications in major journals, many of them supported by very well organised statistical evidence.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, in talking about passive smoking, can the noble Lord clarify whether he is talking about someone popping into a smoky room with a plate of sandwiches and coming out again and going in at the end of the evening to clear up for five minutes, or is he talking about someone living perpetually in a smoky atmosphere during working hours? The nature of the malady is completely affected by the duration that one is subjected to an amount of smoke. The noble Lord is talking about the kind of people referred to under this amendment, who will pop in and out, delivering a plate of sandwiches in a club, as though they were going to have their lives threatened by living in a continuously smoky atmosphere. But here we are talking about very intermittent contact with smoke—casual exposure to passive smoking and not continuous exposure to passive smoking. I believe that scientifically the two things are quite different.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I have in my documentation—I shall not go into it in detail—evidence to show that research that is being undertaken in London has demonstrated that anyone in a London cab, who may be exposed to smoking as the cab is stopped in a traffic jam, is exposed to a significant number of particles of smoke. Even walking past someone who is smoking in the road exposes one to a minimal amount of exposure to particles. But no one can argue that that kind of exposure is harmful.
	However, while I would support, without any reservation whatever, the right of any individual to smoke as much as he wishes when alone and not in the proximity of any other persons, I do not believe that we have the right to smoke in the presence of other people in any kind of enclosed space, such as a restaurant, a pub or a private club, and to impose that health risk on other individuals, not least the staff.
	There are 20,000 licensed members clubs in England, covering a wide range of interests from sport and recreational clubs to political and working men's clubs. Exemptions for private members' clubs would be unworkable and unjust for all the same reasons as exemptions for pubs. Once the health and safety case and public health benefits are accepted, it is not possible to allow an effective compromise for private members' clubs as the staff of those clubs must be protected.
	In Grand Committee I said that I had carried out a very limited range of inquiries. I had inquired about the feelings of the staff in two London clubs—namely, the Athenaeum and the Oxford and Cambridge Club. They said that unequivocally they would wish to see those clubs smoke free. I also inquired at two golf clubs, one of which is my own golf club in north Northumberland, Bamburgh Castle Golf Club, which the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, knows very well. It has a large bar where food, including sandwiches, is served, and a dining room which, at the moment, is smoke free as smoking is banned there. There is no other room in which anyone can smoke and there is no way in which the bar can be divided without doing irreparable damage to it. A very large number of other clubs are in exactly the same situation.
	It is unacceptable that members of clubs should have the right to vote to damage the health of members of their staff. Children are often present in such clubs and are at particular risk from second-hand smoke. Many private clubs are, in effect, bars competing with pubs in their local areas. Exempting them from smoke-free legislation would also create unfair competition and was strongly opposed by the pub and hospitality trade as well as by the health lobby when the Bill was debated in the Commons. I believe that we owe it to the staff of private members' clubs throughout England to stand by the clause that the Commons debated and included in the Bill and to reject the amendment.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I would not want the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, to think that I have fully joined his club. I do not find it inconceivable that the Government should have ratted on their manifesto commitment. That sort of thing goes on all the time. What I find not inconceivable—for inconceivable is not a pejorative word, but simply a statement of fact—but unusual and surprising is that the Government, who have been lecturing us, on this side of the House in particular, on the duty of the House of Lords not to vote against a manifesto commitment of the Government, are now arguing that we should vote against a manifesto commitment of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, was extraordinarily kind to his own side in not putting down an amendment to put the Bill back to what the Government promised the electors they would do. I think he is very modest indeed and despite his modesty, I will support him up hill and down dale on this issue.
	Let us put aside all the technicalities, the arguments about passive smoking, how good or bad it is for you and all the rest of it. Let us stick to the constitutional issue, which the Leader of the House and many other noble Lords on that side have pushed on us time and time again—that this House should not object to a Labour Party manifesto. I must confess that I might do at some time in the future, but not tonight.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, about 40 years ago, I failed to persuade the Law Lords that working men's clubs should be treated as public places for the purpose of colour bars. As a result of that, in the Race Relations Act 1976, the Government, whom I served, decided to overrule the Law Lords and ensure that a colour bar was unlawful, whether in a private members' club or otherwise. What I learnt from that experience is of some relevance today; it is the great difficulty in distinguishing between those clubs that are very private indeed—such as the Garrick Club, to which I used to belong—and clubs that are not very private but are still clubs in law, such as working men's clubs. There are thousands of working men's clubs and they are, in practice, but not in law, indistinguishable from pubs. If this amendment were passed, we can be quite sure that there would be a drift from pubs to working men's clubs.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I have been a member of working men's clubs in Northampton. Some are large, some are very small. Believe me, one is not automatically allowed to join them. On occasion, they are every bit as difficult to get into as I believe the Garrick is.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sure that is right, and it simply illustrates the difficulty. There are big clubs and little clubs; there are clubs that are bogus and some that are genuine; there are clubs that are really private; there are clubs that are snobbish and social and some that are not. But in law, they are identical. Were we to pass this amendment, we would simply add to the real practical difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, indicated.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I support this amendment. I wish that I could persuade your Lordships, even your medical Lordships, to think about risk in a statistical manner. I know that this is a very boring subject which has nothing to do with manifesto commitments, but it is the essence of the rationale of the Bill. I accept that there is a risk from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The question is how big the risk is.
	Let me go very briefly through just one argument. It is generally estimated that the risk of lung cancer among the general population is 1 per 10,000, which is 0.001 per cent. It has been argued that the risk among non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke goes up by 25 per cent. When that is bandied around, it sounds like a large number and looks like a significant increase. It is a significant increase in the risk, but from a very low base: a 25 per cent increase on 1 in 10,000, or 0.0025 per cent. If I now take the Minister's argument, accept that ventilation systems are not perfectly effective and assume that they are only 50 per cent effective, the risk of getting lung cancer from ETS falls to 0.00125 per cent. Let us look at it in millions, which may be a bit easier to understand. The risk of getting lung cancer among the general population is 100 per million. A 25 per cent increase in the risk brings it up to 125 per million. A 50 per cent reduction in the risk because of improved ventilation brings it down to 112.5 per million, and that is the risk of getting lung cancer, not dying from it. This is ordinary, simple statistical thinking.
	However, the main point is that, given that the risk of lung cancer among the general population is so low, the increased risk is statistically insignificant. Technically, it falls within the margin of statistical error; that is, it is too low to register on the statistical radar screen. Now, on the basis of a statistically insignificant risk, people are to be forbidden by the state to set up genuine membership clubs that allow members to smoke. Even on the wildly unrealistic assumption made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that membership clubs that allow smoking will be staffed entirely by non-smokers, the risk to non-smoking staff is so minute as not to be worth thinking about, at least by the Government. I accept that the avoidance of premature death is of high moral significance, but it should not necessarily be the object of public legislation. That is going over the top, which is why I support the amendment wholeheartedly.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I have just calculated that 125 more people will die every year in this statistically small segment of the population. One in 10,000 is not a small number when one takes the country as a whole.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I shall not treat this debate as another Second Reading or Committee stage, but I shall reply very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Those of us in medicine listen to statistics, and I shall quote David Cohen, who is a professor of health economics. He has developed a model that predicts the effects of eliminating exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in public places in Wales, which has a population of only 3 million. It estimates an annual reduction in deaths from lung cancer and coronary heart disease of 253, with a possible additional reduction of deaths from stroke and respiratory diseases of 153.
	Lung cancer is not an orphan cancer. The number of cases involved is not small, and it has one element that other cancers do not have: an appalling prognosis. If any noble Lord has lung cancer, I am sorry to have to tell him that his chances of survival are extremely bad. One of the problems that doctors see with patients who are exposed in the workplace and who have not been exposed at home is that, if they get lung cancer and die young, it is a tragedy for society and for the community.
	I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for intervening in the debate on this amendment and saying more eloquently than I can what is on my mind. It would be in the interest of the tobacco industry to persuade pubs and all kinds of other places to become the type of membership club that already abounds in our city centres for young people at night. In them, a membership card comes with going through the door and buying the first drink, which is a little bit more expensive than all the other drinks that come later. One is then a member and has a card, which states on the back what one can and cannot do. The place fulfils all the regulations for being a club, but is not one in historic practice like the clubs with long histories that other noble Lords have alluded to. We saw that happen in Cardiff city centre. People wanted to make a place slightly more elite, and so it became a membership club, but it was a pseudo-membership club. It was a lovely place to go, but it did not fulfil any of the criteria of somewhere like the Garrick. This amendment would mean an enormous loophole in the legislation that would make it unworkable. I cannot support it.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I shall make three extremely brief points in favour of this excellent amendment. First, many small clubs, in particular those in rural areas, have no paid employees. Members of the club committee take it in turn to dispense drinks on a voluntary basis. If there are no employees who might be put at some risk, why—with the consent of the membership, of course—should smoking not be allowed?
	Secondly, in those mainly larger clubs that employ staff—who must by definition be agreeable to working among smokers—those employees will be at no greater risk than prison officers, nurses and other staff in residential care homes, and chambermaids and room service waiters in hotels, all of whom will continue to be exposed to other people's smoke with the full approval of the Government as the Bill stands.
	Finally, only just over 56 per cent of honourable Members representing English constituencies voted for the banning of smoking in clubs. The majority was inflated by the votes of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs, none of whose constituents have any direct interest in the matter.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. The measure has been presented, in part, as an attack on choice and freedom. I am sorry if my noble friend Lord Pendry considers that it will have an adverse effect on this House's Cigar and Pipe Smokers' Club. It might stop club members smoking, but I think that my noble friend said that it would stop them meeting, which it will not.
	In other areas, we do not have choice. We do not have a choice on how fast we can drive on the roads. We do not make our own decisions on the quality of tyres on our cars or on whether we should use seat belts. Perhaps those who argue that this measure is an attack on choice would be opposed to those provisions. We do not have freedom to employ someone and then decide for ourselves the health and safety standards that should apply, if any. We do not have the freedom to pay an employee however little we want. We do not have the freedom—I am not sure whether this applies in private clubs—to ignore food and hygiene regulations. We do not have the freedom to ignore fire regulations. The reality is that one person's choice, or expression of choice as he or she would see it, leaves another person open to risk or imposition. To argue that the choice or freedom goes in only one direction is a little misleading. That applies to this amendment. Frankly, it is special pleading dressed up in the flag of a very selective choice for some people, when it could potentially be to the serious disadvantage of others.
	If one accepts the overwhelming medical evidence and opinion—I appreciate that there are Members of your Lordships' House who obviously do not—that exposure to second-hand smoke causes health problems, including premature death, what is the case for denying the protection to those who are employed in the 20,000 licensed members' clubs that we have been told about and for discriminating against them in this way? As has been said, many private clubs have bars that compete with local pubs. Exempting them from this legislation would create unfair competition and would, apparently, not be supported by the pub and hospitality trade.
	It seems that it is a case of where you wish to stand on this issue. Do noble Lords wish to stand on the side of club members who can smoke elsewhere—in their homes or in the open air—or on the side of employees who cannot carry out their work elsewhere and in respect of whom employers owe a duty of care? Yes, it is an issue of choice. The vote will show where Members of your Lordships' House decide to make their stand.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I had not intended to engage your Lordships' attention in this debate until I heard three quite extraordinary speeches from the Benches behind me. The first was made by a noble Lord who clearly is a medical expert. I would not dream of challenging his medical views one iota; it would be a presumption to do so. However, it seemed to me that the noble Lord displayed, at the same time as great medical knowledge, a rather limited acquaintance with the way in which British society runs. He said that we did not have the right to "impose" our smoke on other people. No one has to join or work in a club; no one has to work here; no one is imposing on anyone at all. The quite extraordinary concept that driving along a motorway is in any way comparable with going into a members' club leaves me speechless. I am only sorry that my noble friend's amendment is less ambitious than I would have loved it to be, but I totally support it.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it will not surprise your Lordships to know that I oppose this amendment. I hope very much that the House will reject it. I should declare my interest as a trustee of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. As many of your Lordships are aware, Roy Castle was a much loved and popular entertainer who contracted lung cancer from the effects, so he and his widow believed, of working in smoky clubs. He never smoked, but he contracted lung cancer and tragically died of it. When he set up the Lung Cancer Foundation, he was determined that as much as possible should be done not only to treat people who are diagnosed with lung cancer, but also to persuade people that others should not die in the same horrible way as he did.
	We are not talking about a small section of the British community—the private membership clubs. As my noble friend Lord Pendry pointed out, there are something like 20,000 of them. An estimate was given by a Conservative MP on 14 February that the number of employees who work in those clubs is 165,000 or more. That was not denied by the Secretary of State, so we can imagine that it is a realistic figure. Clubs are not run by one or two volunteers in country areas. They are serious places of employment. In many localities, they are run alongside the local pub, wine bar and restaurant.
	We must bear two things in mind. First, taking account of the debate that we had on the earlier amendment and the very decisive decision that your Lordships took about the risks of second-hand smoke and the undesirability of maintaining smoking in restaurants and pubs, as well as the provision for private areas for smokers, we must ask whether we have a right to say that that law does not apply to private members' clubs. My noble friend Lord Rosser alluded to a number of examples where the law naturally applies to private members' clubs. The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for pointing out the excellent work that he did to ensure that our race relations legislation applies equally to private members' clubs. I only regret that the Private Member's Bill that I introduced in your Lordships' House to eliminate sex discrimination in private members' clubs did not get passed in the other place. However, I remind noble Lords that it went through your Lordships' House.
	The main issue is whether employees are entitled to protection. The special nature of clubs was the basis of a letter that I received from the secretary of the clubs trade association, which said that they are special places and deserve a special place in British society. Up to a point that may be so. However, is anyone suggesting that if a club is infested with asbestos, the club management can say to the people who work there, "Don't worry about this; you do this at your own risk and we will not allow the normal health and safety legislation to apply to you when we ask you to take it out"? Of course, we would not do that. Given that your Lordships are clearly of the view that second-hand smoke is dangerous, the protection of workers in clubs is also important.
	My noble friend Lord Pendry referred to the Labour Party election manifesto. At the end of last week, he was kind enough to write to us on these Benches drawing our attention to that. I suspect that some of my colleagues were a little surprised to discover on reading Friday's Guardian that the organisation and circulation of that letter had been funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, which is not a body one normally associates with Labour Party policy. But, if we put that to one side for a moment, the party manifesto needs to be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, was right to refer to it.
	The House must take account of what the Government did once they had been re-elected and once they had decided to embark on legislation on smoking and health. They had already given a commitment that they would consult on these provisions, and they consulted over the course of last summer. This test of public opinion, I would stress to your Lordships, is crucial. Fifty-seven thousand people responded to that consultation. According to the Department of Health, the vast majority of them—four-fifths—called for the proposed policy in the Labour Party manifesto to be changed to a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces. The Department of Health added that the vast majority of those responding believed that, as membership clubs are workplaces, there should be no exemptions.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Of course.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord because he has come up with another very useful and new doctrine which I hope will be adopted by the Government—that is, that if a large number of people in opinion polls say that they are against a proposition which was in the Labour Party's manifesto, it should be dropped.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is not a suggestion that a commitment should be dropped. The Government very sensibly consulted on how the policy should be implemented, and when they discovered that the proposal to exempt private members' clubs and, indeed, pubs that do not serve food, had absolutely no support whatever, it was not surprising that the House of Commons was given the opportunity, on a free vote, to come to a view on whether that policy should survive. As your Lordships know, the decision to remove this exemption—

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. On what basis was this consultation carried out? Was it done in such a way that all views were tested, or was it done selectively?

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend Lord Warner will be delighted to share with the House the basis on which the department conducted the consultation when he replies to the debate, or perhaps now.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am always keen to help the House be better informed on this subject. Those who attended the Grand Committee, which is not very many in this House who are speaking with great authority on this subject, would have learnt that we consulted a wide range of stakeholders and interests after the election, many of whom reflected the views of a much larger group of people. There were 57,000 replies. These were replies not from individuals but from major organisations. I can satisfy the noble Lord's thirst for knowledge in this area by sending him a copy of those documents so that he is better informed on this issue. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner is saying so eloquently, they demonstrate that a very large number of people and organisations in this country took a different view from that which had prevailed when the manifesto was drafted.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, that more or less brings me to the end of what I want to say. The outcome of that consultation was the vote in the other place on 14 February. There was a majority of 384 to 184, and 276 Labour Members of Parliament—all of whom had been elected at the May elections, all of whom perhaps can be regarded as the guardians of the manifesto—voted for it. They outnumbered the "Noes" on the Labour side by five to one. I hope we will have exactly the same result in this House if this goes to a Division today.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly on this and to take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. As regards the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, about the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and getting assistance from the TMA, he will realise that many of the briefings which have been provided to Members on all sides of the House have been from ASH and other anti-smoking organisations which have been subsidised to the extent of £2,691,848 by the Government over the past five years. That is a yearly average of £538,369 from the public purse. We all get help from time to time from various organisations and the TMA is just as entitled as the Government to subsidise briefings that are made in relation to discussions in this House.
	My point about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, concerns the manifesto commitment. I really must say something in support of the Government here because they did in fact try to honour their manifesto commitment. The original Bill they put before the House of Commons was, of course, honestly in accordance with their manifesto commitment. So the Government did their best. But, I am afraid, the House of Commons—and this was carried by Labour Members of Parliament—decided otherwise.
	The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others at the Committee stage tried to persuade me and others that a manifesto commitment could be overturned by Back-Bench Members of the House of Commons. But I have to remind the House that Back-Bench Members are just as committed to the manifesto as Front-Bench Members. I just want to correct the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and to say that the Government did at least try to uphold the manifesto commitment. It was unfortunate that it was spoilt by the Secretary of State for Health, who, after recommending the Bill to the House of Commons, actually voted against it. That is a great pity.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I was so taken aback by the support for the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I almost dozed off. I apologise.
	Amendment No. 5 would reinstate the possibility of exempting membership clubs from the smoke-free provisions, as a number of noble Lords have said. I have to remind noble Lords that the issue of whether or not private members' clubs should be exempt from the smoke-free provisions was the subject of a free vote at the Report stage in the other place. The clear view that was expressed there was that private members' clubs—and, of course, other licensed premises—should be treated in the same way as other public places and workplaces. On the first vote, the majority in favour of extending the ban to membership clubs was 200; on the second vote on whether the ban should extend to membership clubs and all other licensed premises the majority grew to 284. In short, the House of Commons took the view that the legislation should go further than the position in the Labour Party's manifesto in the interests of the public health.
	I am not trying to disguise that fact. That was the decision that was taken in the other place. It is the Government's firm view that that was the right decision, both in terms of public health and in reflecting public opinion.
	A number of noble Lords have referred to the issue of why the situation changed. My noble friend Lord Faulkner cited the change in public opinion reflected in the post-election consultation. We have always said as a Government that we would listen to public opinion on the smoke-free provisions in the Bill. That is why we offered a public consultation after the election. Our original proposals offered a balance between minimising the risk to workers and non-smokers whilst retaining some places for smoking. However, as I said earlier, we listened to many different views inside and outside Parliament and the growing opinion in England in support of a more comprehensive set of measures.
	When the Labour Party's manifesto was drafted, public support for smoke-free pubs and bars was not as strong in England as to warrant comprehensive legislation. It was, as I think a number of noble Lords have said, both today and at the Committee stage, about 50 per cent in favour of a ban. A large majority of the population in England now support a law to make pubs and bars entirely smoke free. While only about half the population supported entirely smoke-free pubs and bars in England in April-May 2004, in under two years—that is, by the end of 2005—that proportion of support for a complete ban had risen to two-thirds and looked as though it was continuing to rise.
	It shows great credit that the Government are prepared to listen to that changing mood on something which a number of noble Lords have said is about culture. The culture of public attitude is changing on this issue. I accept that it may not be changing in one or two places in this House quite as quickly as public opinion, but it is changing in this particular area. The other place voted to create a level playing field in the hospitality sector both in economic terms and, importantly—as a number of noble Lords have said—in terms of protecting the health of workers and patrons.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, made clear, this amendment would create unfair competition for a large section of the hospitality industry. All pubs, bars and restaurants would have to become smoke-free, while the membership club next door could continue to permit smoking. Private clubs with bars frequently compete with pubs in their local area. It is understandable then that the pub trade is strongly opposed to this amendment. In an editorial on 26 January, the Morning Advertiser—the newspaper of the pub industry—recommended that,
	"the 20,000 members clubs in England and Wales must operate on the same lines as our pubs. If they do not, the Government will have created an explosive situation that could tear communities apart in many regions of the country. The trade must now switch its focus to persuading the Government that only a total ban is fair".
	The amendment would also result in disparities in protection from second-hand smoke for workers or patrons in membership clubs compared with those in other hospitality venues. Work in a membership club is similar, if not identical, to work in other hospitality venues. That is the reality of the position in most clubs, as a number of noble Lords have correctly identified. Yet this amendment would mean that a person working behind the bar in a membership club would be expected to breathe hazardous second-hand smoke while a person working behind the bar in a pub would be protected under the law. That is the situation that we would create if we passed this amendment. I know which side of the argument I and the rest of the Government want to stand on.
	In a press notice on 27 October 2005, the British Institute of Innkeeping stated that the pub trade,
	"strongly opposes the proposal that members' clubs are exempt from the ban. If the basis for banning smoking is to protect staff working in licensed premises, those working in members' clubs deserve the same protection. Allowing smoking in members' clubs would lead to a migration of drinkers from local pubs into the members' clubs, which could essentially become smoking clubs. This loss of custom to small licensed premises could drive them out of business".
	That is the industry and not some nanny state speaking on these issues.
	The Bill will ensure a level playing field for the hospitality industry, equal protection from harm for all workers in the hospitality industry and consistency with smoke-free legislation in Scotland. A bit of consistency in that area is no bad thing.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, the debates on this amendment and the previous one have brought out some good arguments on both sides. I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that I happen to know who gave the Guardian that leak. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, when we are bereft of secretarial assistance in this place, we are sometimes only too happy to take up someone who posts you something with which one agrees as an individual. I hope that not too much store is put by that.
	I am bothered by the manifesto commitment. The Labour Party's policy was derived from months of discussion within the party. The ministry poll went out to all kinds of people. They may not have been Labour supporters; they may not support anyone. They came up with a different conclusion. I have never believed in vox populi, vox dei, but it would appear that my Front Bench does. The Labour Party, through its own machinery, determined this policy in its manifesto commitment and it should be unravelled only within the party itself. I do not expect all noble Lords opposite to agree but that point about manifesto commitments must be recognised. This has been a healthy debate and, as a result of a number of views that have been made in favour of the amendment, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 157.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
	"(4A) For the purpose of making provision for those participating as performers in a performance, or in a performance of a specified description, not to be prevented from smoking if the artistic integrity of the performance makes it appropriate for them to smoke—
	(a) the power in subsection (1) also includes power to provide for specified descriptions of premises or specified areas within such premises not to be smoke-free in relation only to such performers, and
	(b) subsection (3) does not prevent the exercise of that power as so extended."

Lord Warner: My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to making exemptions in regulations for those participating as performers in a performance where the artistic integrity of the performance makes it appropriate for them to smoke. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are the key amendments. Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 18, 19 and 21 are consequential amendments.
	Both my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, set out the case during Grand Committee for such an exemption. Just as my colleague Caroline Flint did in the other place, I, too, gave a reassurance that it was the Government's intention to make an exemption for artistic performances but that the detail, as with all proposed exemptions, was a matter for the regulations. However, the work conducted by departmental officials to ensure that such an exemption could be forthcoming revealed some technical problems which meant that it was not possible to remain silent on the face of the Bill yet still make the appropriate exemptions. Let me explain.
	Clause 3(1) provides a general power to exempt premises from the smoke-free provisions. Although we have given a broad description of the main types of premises that will be exempt in subsection (2)—premises where a person has his home, or is living, whether permanently or temporarily—we intend to make exemptions for a small number of other, more unusual, premises. The general power is there specifically to cater for unusual circumstances without having to try and come up with a comprehensive list. A list would be inflexible and would provide no scope for making any further exemptions should a good case be made for exempting a particular set of premises in the future. So other than the broad description in subsection (2), we have deliberately tried to avoid listing any special case. However, when considering exemptions for artistic performances, it became clear that it would not be possible to rely on this general power in all circumstances because of the prohibition in subsection (3) on making any exemptions for licensed premises.
	Many theatres and other performance spaces carry on their activities under just one licence. That licence is likely to cover not only the whole of their premises but also their alcohol sales and theatrical performances. In these circumstances, therefore, the prohibition in subsection (3) comes into play. In other words, it would be unlawful to make an exemption.
	With Amendment No. 7, we have relaxed that prohibition so far as is necessary to allow certain performers to smoke during a performance in all possible venues. So although we were keen not to list "special cases" on the face of the Bill, I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh will appreciate our efforts to make absolutely sure that our promises to make exemptions for artistic performances can be upheld.
	I felt it was important to explain these technical obstacles, as I am sure my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will appreciate, but no doubt welcome, the somewhat different shape this clause has now taken. Of course, the detail of the exemption will still be a matter for the regulations. Amendment No. 7 simply clarifies that performances include such things as plays or a performance given in connection with the making of a film or television programme. It also makes it clear that exemptions can be made in the regulations for rehearsals.
	Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 18, 19 and 21 are consequential amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making this exemption possible. Despite the fact that, as he explained, it arose out of a technicality, it is none the less extremely gratifying that the arguments have been accepted and that the exemption, or notification of it, will be on the face of the Bill. We had not expected that and are grateful for it. I speak on behalf of my colleagues in the theatre industry and the wider entertainment industry when I say that.
	I think that I can also say with confidence that those colleagues will in no way seek to find any loopholes or abuse the privilege that the exemption will give them. I hope that my noble friend and his colleagues in the department will seek the help of people in the industry in drafting the regulations so that they are as tightly constructed as possible, as well as being helpful to the industry and for the general purposes of the Bill.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I welcome these amendments and thank the Minister for responding so positively to the debate that we had in Grand Committee on the issue of theatrical and other sorts of performance. The concession is very much appreciated not only by me but, as the noble Baroness said, the theatrical community as a whole. I have a couple of questions. I take it that, in Amendment No. 7, paragraph (a) of new subsection (4A) means precisely what it says and that the list of performances mentioned there is not meant to be exhaustive. For example, opera is not mentioned. If a performance of "Carmen" were to include, as it often does, the factory of women smoking in Act One, that would presumably be covered by the exemption, as, I take it, would smoking in any other sort of performance, provided that it was appropriate in terms of its artistic integrity.
	Secondly, I note that paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 7, which refers to rehearsals, states:
	"if the regulations so provide".
	I hope very much that they will so provide. Actors are professional people. They need to rehearse fully in order to give of their best. If they need to smoke as part of a performance they should be permitted to do so in rehearsal as well.
	I very much welcome the fact that the Bill at least allows the possibility of rehearsals to be exempted, but has a decision been taken on this and, if it has not, will the Minister look as sympathetically as possible on this aspect?

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, welcome the way in which the Government have taken on board some of the issues that were presented to the Minister during Grand Committee. Rather like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I want to ask the Minister for clarification of whether paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 7 refers to places being used as locations for films.
	Secondly, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, will broader artistic performances be included when the regulations are made?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome these amendments very much. However, they drive a coach and horses through the arguments of those noble Lords who have said that a single whiff of cigarette smoke would be dangerous to them. In a performance—whether a rehearsal or not—it is not only the performer who would be smoking. His second-hand smoke would be inhaled by the ancillary staff as well as the fellow actors while he is smoking. Although I welcome the amendments, they show up the absurdity of some of the arguments that have been used during the debate this afternoon.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to people smoking and second-hand smoke. I cannot take the risk of going to any performance whatever for that reason.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, can the Minister reassure me with regard to this amendment? I would be concerned if the amendment were to result in the promotion of product placement. I am sure that that is not the desired effect, but I would like to hear from the Minister some recognition that product placement—people smoking in films and entertainment—should not be promoted. I am sure that he would agree with me on that.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned a coach and horses. I do not think that Cinderella would qualify in terms of artistic integrity.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, Cinderella would be at far more danger from stoking the fire than having a whiff of cigarette smoke.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and others raised the issue of whether paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 7 is exhaustive—it is not. Opera would be included where it is part of the artistic integrity of the performance. The exemption in paragraph (a) applies to the performer not the place, so filming on location would be covered where appropriate.
	I must say to my noble friend that I cannot conceive of any set of circumstances at the moment where product placement would qualify in terms of artistic integrity, but I am happy to put that in writing to her.
	There is provision for rehearsals to be dealt with in the regulations. There will need to be full consultation with the industry in this area. I know that there are some concerns on the part of Equity, for example, that rehearsal rooms and other areas in the theatre should not cause their members to be exposed to second-hand smoke. There will have to be a full discussion with the industry about the precise phrasing of the regulations, but we stand by our decision to give exemption on the basis of artistic integrity in relation to particular performances.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of subsection (4A), the references to a performance—
	(a) include, for example, the performance of a play, or a performance given in connection with the making of a film or television programme, and
	(b) if the regulations so provide, include a rehearsal."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Additional smoke-free places]:

Lord Naseby: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) is not exercisable so as to specify any place or description of place where a person has his home, or is living whether permanently or temporarily."

Lord Naseby: My Lords, we know that Clause 4 enables the making of,
	"regulations designating as smoke-free any place . . . that is not smoke-free under",
	Clause 2, subject only to the national authority being,
	"satisfied that, without the designation, persons present there would be likely to be exposed to smoke".
	Responding to amendments to this proviso in Grand Committee, the Minister undertook to come back on Report with an amendment raising the threshold for using the power, which he has done. However, it is still arguable that Clause 4 could enable smoking to be prohibited in an individual's home, which is not a work or public place but, in terms of Clause 4(1), is not,
	"smoke-free under section 2".
	It is well known that banning smoking in the home is an objective of the most ardent anti-smoking activists. Indeed, we heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that he falls into that category. So regardless of the formal expressions of the right to a private life expressed in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is in any event subject to the UK's continued adoption of the convention and—this is important—to the right not being claimed to be overridden by health reasons, it would be preferable to put beyond any doubt the fact that regulations made under Clause 4 may not designate an individual's home or accommodation as smoke-free.
	In Grand Committee, the Minister said:
	"Premises that are to be exempt will remain exempt indefinitely".
	Unfortunately, he went on to say,
	"but we will review the legislation, including exemptions, after three years".—[Official Report, 24/4/06; col.GC22.]
	Can the Minister tonight be absolutely crystal clear to the House that everyone's home will be exempt indefinitely? I beg to move.

Lord Monson: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, first tabled this amendment I thought that perhaps he was being slightly paranoid but, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, this afternoon, I very much see what the noble Lord is getting at. There may be more people than we think who believe with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that smoking should be banned in the home.
	I really wanted to speak about Amendment No. 9, which is a government amendment, which for some strange reason has been grouped with Amendment No. 8. I do not know why because they seem to bear no relation to one another but, as I take it that the Minister does not want to degroup it, I shall discuss it now. Amendment No. 9 is certainly an improvement on the present wording, so it is welcome as far as it goes. But the amendment uses the words "significant quantities of smoke" when it should really refer to "significant risk to health". There is considerable difference between the two; let me illustrate this with an example.
	The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is one of the most assiduous and energetic contributors to your Lordships' deliberations, as I am sure your Lordships will acknowledge. When he is not in the Chamber or the Division Lobby—and I saw him in the Lobby this afternoon—he keeps himself hale and hearty by walking along to the Truro Room, there to inhale deep lungfuls of second-hand tobacco smoke while carrying out his preparation and research. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is exposed to "significant quantities of smoke" but, equally, this does not appear to pose a significant risk to his health, as the noble Lord is in his 98th year. Will the Minister take that on board with a view to accepting an amendment to improve the wording as I have suggested at Third Reading?

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I briefly ask a question about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I am an ardent anti-smoker, as anyone who heard me speak in previous stages of debate on this Bill, in Committee and at Second Reading, will know, but I decided that the arguments had been so thoroughly gone through there that I would not join in this debate. However, I want to ask about this because it is a new area. Should the Government accept the noble Lord's amendment, although given the Minister's mood this afternoon that seems unlikely, I would like to be assured that nothing in the amendment would mean that any worker going into a home was put in difficulty in terms of their employment.
	As the Minister will know, the domiciliary care organisations are extremely concerned about what will happen to protect home care workers going into homes where they will be exposed to second-hand smoke. While I am sure that no doctor, paramedic or social care worker would wish to put any vulnerable person in their care at risk, it is essential that we understand the complexities and the difficulties that that will cause for some workers in relation to second-hand smoke. I want to make sure that this amendment, were it accepted, would not complicate that already complicated issue.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I have two points on which I should like some guidance from the Minister because I am not sure that I am reading this legislation correctly. One relates to an issue that the noble Baroness has just raised. Is a private home in which carers are employed bound to be a smoke-free zone? That is to say, are carers protected?
	I must say that in the case of my own home I rather turn around from the position from which I have spoken today, in that we have more trouble with carers who smoke in our smoke-free home than there is any risk to carers to carers coming in and having to breathe smoke from cigarettes that my wife and I have smoked—because neither of us smokes. I do not know where the legislation lies there, and I should be grateful for some clarification. It might help other people as well.
	Secondly, Clause 2(2) says:
	"Premises are smoke-free if they are used as a place of work . . . by more than one person"—
	and then there are some caveats or enlargements, and,
	"where members of the public might attend for the purpose of seeking or receiving goods or services".
	Then they fall into the smoke-free category.
	As I understand it now, a flat used by two whores or two rent boys is no longer regarded as brothel that should be closed down, but is a place of work. Will it be the effect of this Bill, if it is enacted as it is, that while most things could go on in such premises, some of which some of us might regard as distinctly unhealthy, the one thing that would be prohibited would be smoking? Even more, I understand that such premises do not have to give access to medical officers of health. As I understand the Bill—and I stand to be corrected and am sure that the Minister will have enormous fun in correcting me if I am wrong, the anti-smoking inspector will have the right to go there to ensure that in the aforesaid whore's or rent boy's bedroom there is a notice that says "no smoking". Now I think that there are worse things than smoking that might be going on—but I should just like to know whether my reading of the legislation is correct.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I want to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, why I think that there is a real problem with the amendment that he has tabled in relation to Wales. The National Assembly for Wales had a committee on smoking in public places which was chaired by Val Lloyd, AM, and reported in May 2005. The committee worked out the areas that it would like to make exemptions for. The places that the National Assembly for Wales designated and the wording of the amendment are in conflict. The amendment states that it would be,
	"any place or description of place where a person has his home".
	The exemptions outlined in the report from the Assembly include,
	"designated areas in long-stay hospital units . . . designated areas in residential and nursing homes . . . designated areas of prisons".
	So there is a real conflict with the amendment, with nothing specifying that Wales would be exempt. Wales has waited a long time to be able to have provisions to make is own regulations.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, of course it is perfectly within the powers of the Welsh Assembly to provide its own amendments to the regulations, so I do not know that England should necessarily be dictated to by the situation in Wales.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I think that the problem is that we are now dealing with the primary legislation; the secondary legislation comes later. The National Assembly for Wales, as I understand it, would be bound by this clause. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that. I understand that it will not be until after the Government of Wales Bill has passed that the Assembly will be able to put forward an Order in Council to have the powers to overturn the primary legislation aspect to the Bill. That is a long way down the road. We are still debating the Government of Wales Bill and the Order in Council procedure is not well worked out. I am greatly reassured by seeing nods from my fellow Welsh Peers.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would like to make a comment on each of the amendments. The first one, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is troubling—there is no doubt about that. A person's home is a person's home. In English parlance, it is his castle. I am extremely worried that some people may consider it not as his home but as their place of work. It really will cause enormous difficulties if there are people, particularly old people, who have smoked all their lives and depend on a cigarette for comfort but need the attention of the social services or doctors. Unless they stop smoking, which may kill them—and it could kill them, make no mistake about it—they will not get the attention that they need. That is a serious point, which needs clearing up. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will be able to clear it up, perhaps not at this stage, but later.
	The other point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He makes the very reasonable point that we should be talking about people in the open air being exposed to significant risk of harm from smoke. If they are not at risk of harm from smoke, we are talking about something of a different order. I am pleased that the Minister has tabled this amendment, but I think that he could go a bit further. There has been mention of second-hand smoke being harmful in open-air situations, but I do not know of any study that says that a whiff of somebody else's smoke out in the open air is dangerous. I wonder whether the noble Lord would look at this provision and put in the caveat that people have to be at risk of harm from other people's smoke.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that none of us would wish to restrict the ability of the National Assembly for Wales to formulate its own legislation in this area. That aside, I would like to support my noble friend on the thrust of his amendment. I hope that we shall hear some robust reassurances from the Minister about private homes and domestic premises. I very much welcome Amendment No. 9, which responds extremely satisfactorily to the concerns that I and others raised in Grand Committee on the otherwise rather open-ended wording of Clause 4.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I begin by responding to Amendment No. 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. This amendment seeks to ensure that the smoke-free provisions in the Bill cannot extend to private residential dwellings. Let me begin by reassuring noble Lords, as I tried to do in Grand Committee, that this Bill is about protecting people from exposure to second-hand smoke in enclosed and substantially enclosed public places and workplaces. That is what Clause 2 does. We have no intention of making people's private spaces smoke-free by law.
	Clause 4 provides a power to make additional places smoke-free. These will be places that will not be enclosed or substantially enclosed, as defined by regulations under Clause 2, but where there is a risk of harm from second-hand smoke due to the inevitable close grouping of people. Examples might be sports stadiums, bus shelters and entrances to public buildings or workplaces. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted that the power in Clause 4 to designate additional smoke-free places could potentially be used to prohibit smoking in domestic premises. In my response to that committee, and during the debate in Grand Committee, I made it clear that the Government will implement smoke-free legislation in line with human rights requirements, including the right to respect for private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I think that I heard the Minister say that this legislation did not apply to private homes. That is, of course, true in general. Am I correct in saying that if, for example—and to use a rather less contentious example than earlier—physiotherapists offer services to people coming to their homes, that part of the private home used for physiotherapeutic treatment would be a smoke-free zone? Am I right in that reading of the legislation?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord may just have to contain himself until I complete my peroration on this subject, in which I will try to cover some of the circumstances to which he has alluded. I will answer his question if he can wait patiently until I explain the structure of the legislation.
	The approach that we have adopted is, as I have said, consistent with the example of an exemption from the requirement to be smoke-free given in Clause 3(2). The example in the Bill refers to enclosed work and public premises being exempt where they are a person's home, or a place where a person is living permanently or temporarily. Furthermore, the power in Clause 4 to designate additional smoke-free places will be tightly regulated and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	The provision in Clause 3 deals with a range of areas where people may be living permanently or temporarily but which are regarded as their home. A good example of this might be a pub or shop where a person lives in a flat above. In those circumstances, the shop is an enclosed public place and the flat above is a domestic residence, exempt from the provisions of Clause 3. In cases where people are, effectively, regularly conducting a business from their premises, that is regarded as business premises, but it will be up to people to make their own arrangements and to make these decisions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, raised a number of more common experiences as well as a more titillating experience, down which path he tried to tempt me. I say to the noble Lord—and to other noble Lords fascinated by such subjects—that we are not legislating for every conceivable set of circumstances. We are certainly not legislating for carers going into a person's home where they will be exposed to smoke. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has mentioned his own experience in that area. I have no direct experience of some of the other circumstances to which he alluded. We cannot prescribe for all possible sets of circumstances in this legislation. I am not sure that the enforcement officers of the legislation will be so encouraged to move into some of those premises to carry out their public duties. As I said, we cannot legislate for every possible circumstance and it will be a matter for case-by-case agreement and common sense between the people involved.
	However, I acknowledge the concerns raised in Grand Committee about the broad power in Clause 4 to make additional places smoke-free and the desire to strengthen the constraints on the Government's use of the power. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 9, which raises the threshold for the exercise of this power to cases where, and I think it worth quoting,
	"in the authority's opinion",
	—the Secretary of State in the case of England and the National Assembly for Wales in the case of Wales—
	"there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke".
	We think that that wording makes it absolutely clear that the power cannot be used in cases where the exposure to second-hand smoke is unlikely or only very limited. I hope that that provides noble Lords with the reassurance that we are limiting our ability to use this provision under Clause 4 in the way that I have indicated.
	I cannot say that we are tempted to go further down the path urged by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. We have taken a lot of advice on this from parliamentary counsel and we think that this is the right way of framing the restraint on our powers under Clause 4.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I think that this debate demonstrates the value of a Committee stage. There were deep concerns in Committee. I am pleased that the Minister has listened to them. As my noble friend said from the Front Bench, Amendment No. 9 is greatly to be welcomed. What the Minister said this evening has reassured me to a degree. I just hope that my worries will not materialise. The matter is now firmly on the record.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it occurs to me that Members of the House who are active smokers—and mention was made earlier of the cigar and pipe smokers or some such organisation of this House—had best see if they can vote for a Speaker of the House who is a smoker, since his apartments here would be his private home. He could then entertain them and smoking could continue in this building for many years to come.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am not sure that it is for any noble Lord to advise what others should do in a free vote on the Speakership.
	I am reasonably reassured. The Minister was quite clear. Let us hope that if a case does arise, that can be used in evidence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 3, line 27, leave out from "if" to end of line 28 and insert "in the authority's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.44 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Africa: Corruption

Lord Chidgey: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are planning in response to the recent report of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, The Other Side of the Coin: The UK and Corruption in Africa.
	My Lords, we speak readily of welcoming the new era for the African continent in which we, in the old industrialised world, are committed to supporting new initiatives, investment and enterprise within and between nations that have been overlooked and neglected for too long. But if we are to do that, we must face head-on that scourge of Africa—the culture and practice of institutionalised corruption—and we must recognise that the UK, among others, is part of this corruption process. We must look at the other side of the coin. I therefore welcome this debate with your Lordships on the report of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, The Other Side of the Coin: The UK and Corruption in Africa.
	The report has gained the attention of the national and international press. It has been highly complimented by the South African Finance Minister. I presented a copy myself to the President of Botswana and his Cabinet, where it was also well received. I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out our Government's response to the recommendations made in the report. In that context, I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group. I should like to acknowledge the contribution made to the group's work by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, both of whom are here tonight and I understand will contribute later.
	The Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group inquiry into corruption and money laundering recognises that institutionalised corruption and the attendant capital flight present a huge obstacle to development in Africa. The report concentrates on the United Kingdom primarily because of the group's United Kingdom parliamentary reference. The group's wish is to see the United Kingdom in the vanguard of international efforts to address this issue, recognising our increasing overseas development assistance. Our Government, particularly DfID, were helpful to the group in bringing together and providing detailed written evidence. The group welcomed the Government's commitment to produce a consolidated cross-Whitehall response, inferring at least increasing cross-departmental working on these matters.
	The report cannot be exhaustive, but there are three areas where in particular the UK should contribute to the fight against corruption in Africa: first, tackling the supply side of corruption—bribe payments and mechanisms in international trade and credit that facilitate corruption; secondly, tackling the laundering of the proceeds of corruption; and, thirdly, safeguarding aid to ensure that it does not become caught up in corruption or inadvertently support corrupt leaders.
	The World Bank estimates that some $1 trillion is paid globally in bribes each year. The sums embezzled or stolen from public funds and assets by corrupt officials and the unquantified volume of fraud within the private sector could well triple the overall scale of global corruption. Corruption hits and hurts the poorest people hardest. It obstructs development. It fetters business growth. In a survey of nine African countries, the World Bank ranked corruption as the major impediment to their development. The money lost through corruption has a knock-on effect on development. The indirect effects include losses in investment, in private sector development and in economic growth. Where corruption becomes endemic, development is stifled. The World Bank estimates that where good governance and corruption control have been firmly established, the long-term dividend can be as much as a three to fourfold increase in income per capita, together with an extra 2 per cent to 4 per cent in annual economic growth. Although corruption is and must be seen as a global problem, Africa has gained a particularly bad reputation for corruption from the highest level down through the system. The continent as a whole suffers, with 10 of the 20 most corrupt countries to be found in that continent.
	Africa also suffers a sort of double whammy, where the proceeds from corruption are then banked or spent outside of the continent. Capital flight is a huge financial problem for Africa. Estimates of the total amount of illicit proceeds coming out of Africa are, by their nature, not precise, but they are thought to be in the range between $100 billion to $200 billion each and every year, a sum that totally dwarfs aid and debt relief to the continent. Moreover, most of the outflow of illicit funds is permanent, with as much as 80 per cent to 90 per cent of it not returning from those shady accounts tucked away in the world's financial centres.
	The organisation Transparency International defines corruption as,
	"the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".
	Within our report, corruption is considered to include offering, soliciting and accepting bribes. The report points out that embezzlement through mechanisms which include siphoning off funds to non-existent companies and through fake and mispriced transactions is rife throughout much of Africa. Up to 60 per cent of transactions are reckoned to be mispriced, with an average of 11 per cent being skimmed off the top. Together with fake transactions, they account for an annual flight of capital in excess of $150 billion.
	It is abundantly clear that much needs to be done in our own backyard if we are to contribute in any significant way to tackling corruption from the other side of the coin. In its report, the group highlighted six out of 38 recommendations to the Government as key candidates for action. Of these I will emphasise just three.
	The first is to rigorously enforce existing laws and sanctions against international bribery, corruption and money laundering. The issue here is enforcement, as the problem is that investigations are complicated and expensive, while prosecutions are difficult. Yet we now have the Serious Organised Crime Agency: its priorities must embrace corruption and not allow it to be sidelined by concerns over illegal drugs and terrorism, however important and relevant those may be.
	Secondly, I emphasise the recommendation that the Government should appoint an anti-corruption champion for a two-year period, to co-ordinate policy coherence and implementation across Whitehall and to work with devolved Executives, Crown dependencies, overseas territories and our international partners. I would like particularly to hear from the Minister whether the Government will consider this proposal from the group seriously. The champion could be a Minister or an official with clout within the financial and business sectors—such a person could, I suggest, certainly bang a few heads together to get something moving.
	The third recommendation that I want to emphasise suggests bringing to Parliament a new anti-corruption Bill before the end of 2006, to address the concerns raised by the Joint Committee about the 2003 draft Bill. The Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee severely criticised the Government's 2003 draft Bill, concluding unanimously—from all parties and in both Houses—that it would not be understood by the police, prosecutors, jurors or the public. Most important, they concluded that it would not be understood by the business and public sector communities.
	It is therefore welcome that the Government have relented and initiated public consultation. In parallel to this process and to the work of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, the Minister will be aware that Transparency International has sponsored the preparation of a draft corruption Bill that meets many of the legislative objectives of the group's report. That Bill was introduced in another place under the 10-minute rule by Hugh Bayley MP, chairman of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group.
	In consultation with group colleagues and Transparency International, I have checked with the Public Bill Office, which has confirmed that it is in order to introduce the same draft corruption Bill in this House. In the event that pressures on the Government's legislative programme prevent Ministers from progressing with the draft Bill in the other place, I plan to bring it forward in this House as a Private Member's Bill after the summer Recess. That will at least allow your Lordships the opportunity to debate and scrutinise it through all its stages. In conclusion, I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some indication on whether this proposal would be given serious consideration by the Government in due course.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on arranging the debate and on the succinct way in which he has given the House an ideal summary of the report from the All-Party Group on Africa. I join him in congratulating those who produced the report.
	Like the noble Lord, I must declare an interest as being an officer of the All-Party Group. Although, I hasten to say, I did not take part in the steering group which produced the report, I want to compliment the group on the amount of work it put in and on the clarity of the evidence before us. It is in order to pay tribute to the Royal African Society, which provided the administration for the committee, and to KPMG and Deloitte for providing the finance to produce the report. I want to put on record my thanks to Penny Jackson, who drafted the report, and to Richard Dowden of the Royal African Society for his editorial advice.
	Corruption is not a victimless crime. Everyone affected by it knows what they are doing. If I show a slight difference of opinion from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, it is that it does not wash for companies to say that they do not understand the legislation. The companies who are in the business of corruption and bribery know exactly what they are doing. They know exactly how to get around the law as it exists and will always complain that any law produced will be too complicated for them to understand.
	Corruption occurs in many different ways. At its lowest level it begins with the poor individual who, trying to get a form processed, slips a few notes into the hands of a public official, hoping that will bring the form through the process rather quickly. It extends to the massive corruption by states and immense multinational corporations which put millions and millions of dollars through their hands. The report shows that a whole number of things happen. Corruption breeds inefficiency and contempt and corrodes the whole society in which it occurs.
	There are so many different forms of corruption and bribery that we cannot go through them all this evening. I want to concentrate on one particular form which needs to be addressed. I refer particularly to what is known as mispricing. This simple practice of corruption is extremely widespread. Alarmingly, the report says that the extent of this mispricing scam is much under-reported. It is a practice to move money illegally between countries by individuals or companies. It is sometimes used for tax avoidance and sometimes for embezzlement.
	How do we find out what is going on? These are secret agreements and, as with all secret transactions, it is difficult to arrive at a precise figure for how much is entailed. However, research has suggested that mispricing draws between $100 million and $200 million each year from developing and transitional countries. That is a massive amount of money, clearly damaging the countries and the people concerned. Indeed, one study has suggested that 60 per cent of all trade transactions in Africa are mispriced by an average of 11 per cent. That practice is common not only between governments and suppliers; it operates between companies themselves. After importing goods at vastly inflated prices and showing them in the books for much less, the difference then goes into private profits in offshore accounts.
	The fact is that these things can sometimes be resolved fairly clearly, by greater transparency or knowledge. It might help in cases of mispricing if both parties to the agreement actually signed both bits of it, so that they agree both on the selling and buying prices. That may not seem like an enormous thing to do, but there is no magic bullet that can eradicate corruption almost at one fell swoop. Yet there are things that we can do and, as the noble Lord has said, one important thing is that mechanisms used to try to stop corruption must be vigorously enforced. That can make a significant difference. We must ensure that the giver of bribes is regarded as no less guilty than the taker.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for introducing this short debate. I have always been a firm believer that Africa's problems require African solutions, but there is no doubt that influential countries such as the United Kingdom can play a positive role in the future economic, political and social development of Africa. In my view, this thorough and perceptive report by the All-Party Group on Africa provides a clear indication of how the United Kingdom might play precisely such a positive role in addressing the ongoing problem of corruption in many African countries. There is no doubt that the chairman of the group is absolutely right when he declares in his summary:
	"The scale, extent and impact of corruption and capital flight undoubtedly present a critical obstacle to development in Africa".
	Few countries, let alone Africa, can afford to lose what the World Bank estimates as US$1 trillion in bribes paid each year and $1.5 trillion in tainted procurement. I was particularly struck by the African Union's estimate, included in the report, that a total of $148 billion leaves the continent because of corruption. Those figures should not conjure up images of a handful of people enjoying amazing wealth and living the high life in London, Paris and New York, although that is one consequence. When we read those mind-boggling statistics, we must see African children who are deprived of basic medicine and education; starving people who are denied food; communities that are denied clean water and millions of people who are denied hope. That is the true price of corruption in Africa, and it should inspire Her Majesty's Government not simply to read the report but to act decisively on it.
	The past decade has been a period of remarkable change in Africa, and it has been change for the better. Countries such as Mozambique, Zambia, Sierra Leone and Angola have taken important steps towards establishing effective, stable democracies and honest governments. Organisations such as Transparency International and initiatives such as NePAD have concentrated their efforts on setting out parameters and realistic guidelines that will help to infuse transparency and good governance to many African Governments. Such efforts are much more than straws in the wind. Two weeks ago, while visiting the DRC, I met the interim President Joe Kabila, and I was extremely encouraged to hear his commitment to upholding the principles of good governance and to supporting the anticorruption campaign.
	Without being over-optimistic, I believe the tide is moving in the right direction, against corruption in Africa. Change has been initiated at grass-roots level. Many millions of Africans have grown tired of the civil wars and corruption that have been such a deterrent to international investment in their countries and, in election after election, in droves, they have voted to oust leaders who have failed them. That groundswell is timely. At a time when the international community is confronted by ever-increasing demands on natural energy resources, there is a boom in international investment interest in many African countries.
	The All-Party Group is of course absolutely right to draw attention to corruption as one of the major obstacles to potential international investment. In addition to embracing measures to curb corruption, it is important that international investors are equally sensitive to the need to embrace the principles not only of corporate social responsibility but of securing black empowerment partners in their ventures.
	The mantra that Africa requires "trade not aid" is often repeated and, by implementing the recommendations of this report, Her Majesty's Government will go a long way to creating the conditions for increased levels of fair trade, which will create jobs. In doing so, perhaps this country could also take whatever steps are necessary to encourage other major countries, notably China, to be equally as rigorous and responsible in their trade initiatives on the African continent.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Chidgey on securing this debate and introducing it so comprehensively. I am an executive member of the All-Party Group on Africa, although I was involved in only one session of this inquiry. I was very impressed indeed by the thoroughness and commitment of other members of the group, especially the chair, Hugh Bayley, adviser, Richard Dowden of the Royal African Society, and the secretary, Penny Jackson, who drafted the report. I note that no response has yet been forthcoming to the report from the Government. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us why that is and when we should expect a response.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, corruption is not a victimless crime. Funds taken inappropriately from one area are not available to go to where they are intended. That is true across the board, but of course it is particularly obvious when aid money has gone astray. We all know the stark contrast between the malnourished children, out of school, playing in the dirt, dressed in rags, and the row of Mercedes outside parliaments. I know that some say that in the West we have grand cars for Ministers, so why cannot parliaments there? We all know that when we seek to fund the strengthening of parliaments, it is not the trappings of power that we think should be tackled first. I find it very difficult to square those two sides in the poorest of countries, even though it simply reflects our shared human condition.
	Of course, there are different patterns of family responsibility, where you may not just pay one person but support their whole family. However, surely it is better still to support a whole community. That is why we need strong and transparent systems, both in developing countries and in developed ones. In the DRC, for example, local people have been involved in corrupt practices—although I hear what the noble Lord has just said—but so too are western companies. They have been more than happy to exploit and drain resources out of the country and to foster conflict there. The Commission for Africa was quite right to highlight tackling corruption as part of tackling poverty. NGOs sometimes do not wish to do so; they do not wish to highlight it, and that is understandable. They do not wish their donors to think that their money is being used corruptly and become more cynical than ever about giving.
	The group focuses on the UK's actions because it is UK-based, and it as well to start here. As happens time and again, often the problem is in the implementation of what already exists. The report calls for the existing laws and sanctions against international bribery and corruption to be better implemented. Prosecutions have indeed proved difficult, as my noble friend Lord Chidgey said. Will the noble Baroness comment on how the existing laws will be better implemented? I note, for example, the work that my noble friend Lord Avebury has done on the DRC and those companies identified by the UN as needing to be brought to book in their own countries for actions carried out in the DRC. I was horrified when he told me that only one civil servant was working on this in the DTI, up against the power of multinational corporations. No wonder no successful cases were brought. Has this now changed? What are the Government doing to show that they are really serious about tackling British companies that are found at fault in these areas?
	The report also asked that a new anti-corruption Bill be brought forward before the end of this year. As my noble friend said, Transparency International has drafted a Bill to address that. In principle, do the Government hope to assist my noble friend—who I commend—in taking this forward, or will they introduce a similar Bill? We have just concluded our scrutiny of the Company Law Reform Bill. I am glad that we were able to bring forward amendments, some of which the Government responded to, on reporting and transparency. The Bill still needs further amendments, and I hope to see such changes in the Commons. Perhaps the noble Baroness could indicate what changes the Government plan for the Bill in the Commons. We have to move fast on this issue, and we must act on an international basis. As has just been mentioned, China's involvement in Africa is increasing very fast. This is a situation where international action is called for. The UN's involvement in this area is very welcome, but it is extremely limited. I would like to know how the noble Baroness feels we can encourage further international action.
	We face the economic and social implosion of many African communities because of AIDS. We cannot allow multinational corporations, or the diversion of aid, to undermine support for those who need help most. That is why I welcome the report, and this debate, and look forward to the noble Baroness's reply.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, has done a service to the governance of the UK as well as to many African states in calling attention to this excellent report. I declare an interest as a member of the Executive of the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, and of the Advisory Council of Transparency International (UK), the anti-corruption charity.
	The report distinguishes between grand corruption and petty corruption, which states themselves have to grapple with. They are increasingly doing so, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John, said: such as the state-funded Nigerian Government's Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, bravely rooting out fake, often death-dealing, corruptly purchased medicines; and the new Liberian President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's code for the civil service, aimed, with legal penalties, at rooting out the corruption which she described two weeks ago in London as "pervasive throughout" her society. We can support this with measures such as the Private Member's Bill on reporting and transparency, which I hope to introduce shortly.
	Grand corruption, of the sort that loots national infrastructure budgets and puts the revenues of national assets into the pockets of powerful individuals, is not a matter of the internal culture of the suffering country alone. Bribery on this scale needs an, invariably foreign, investor/contractor, as well as a local recipient. John Githongo, the distinguished Kenyan former Permanent Secretary of their anti-corruption department, in a very interesting speech on 8 June, described the nourishing of this corrosive evil as,
	"embedded corruption networks engineered mainly during the Cold War"—
	when—
	"the West supported some of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes on the continent".
	It was to deal with this that the main international rules were developed. The UK has signed up to most of them and it has moved positively, after complaints, to improve the Export Credit Guarantee Department's anti-bribery and corruption procedures last March.
	But there is not a clear message at all about what our anti-corruption legislation consists of. The law is piecemeal and unsatisfactory; the Government's previous attempt to draft a Bill—the scrutiny committee which I was privileged to sit on—was, sadly, confusing and missed the point about overseas corruption. I hope the current consultative process will take account of all the points raised. Very many responsible companies know how to keep their house in order ethically. Those of us who read the interesting debate last week about London as a financial centre might have been struck by how crucial the culture of trust and shared values was to the original development of the City and how important it is now, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, emphasised.
	I do hope that the Government will accept the report's proposed amendment to the Company Law Reform Bill, which all our honourable friends are minded to move to close a significant loophole against money-laundering. But even more, I hope they will take the heaven-sent opportunity of a draft Bill—which business can understand and operate, and which is stimulated by the scrutiny committee's report—and which the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is fortunately to take forward. For while the Government delay, millions suffer and many die, because of corrupt acts carried out by rich companies with impunity, including British ones. Our part of the bargain with the developing states, whose better governance we solicit, must be to reduce substantially corrupt behaviour by UK companies.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on introducing this debate. I also declare an interest as a co-founder and vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Africa. This has been a very important initiative, and we trust that the Government will take its recommendations seriously; indeed, I am sure that they will. I can also, perhaps, echo the thanks extended by the noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord Hughes, and others to all those responsible for the report.
	I would like to add a couple of themes which have not so far been mentioned. "The Other Side Of The Coin" is a brilliant inspiration as a title. Let me take the metaphor a stage further. How can we get beyond the blame game, and ratchet up each other's performance and accountability? Attributing blame, even if it is 50:50, does not matter in one sense. What is the relationship between the failures of the two sides?
	When I was on a CPA delegation to Nigeria recently, we were repeatedly asked when we would get President Abacha's $5 billion back. Now, I do not think that people seriously thought that somewhere in Westminster, or even in EC4, there was $5 billion in somebody's account. There was the perception, however, that that was where the money was and that we could do something directly about it. I will come later to the question of who can do what about what in this field of enforcement.
	I have no doubt that Nigeria has not been suddenly transformed into the social democracy of somewhere such as Sweden. I also echo, however, the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that it is no justification for any part of Africa to say, "You earn a lot more than we do, and we are justified in demanding and taking for ourselves, out of the bank account, the expatriate lifestyle". That is the way to ruin for us all.
	This points to the problem of developing mutual obligations, which is the theme of the European Council's report on strategic partnership with Africa. The European Select Committee is producing a report, in which I have been involved, on the implementation of the AU-EU idea as a strategic partnership. The right way to proceed is to bypass the blame game, with charges of imperialism and corruption, which are, in a sense, a cul-de-sac, and to take forward more creatively the question of how to raise each other's game.
	Transfer pricing was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hughes and others and, economically, it is probably 10 times more important in terms of loss of income than money laundering and so on. Here, I echo the tributes paid to Transparency International. I am not the greatest fan of single-issue pressure groups, but Transparency International has worked to consistently high standards and it has concentrated on the areas where the focus must be, which I shall now come to.
	How can we bring about improved auditing in the north and the south as well as in Africa? The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned that some of us tried to push amendments in the Company Law Reform Bill for the dollar, or the pound in this case, and the euro to be followed in all the subsidiaries, but the reply was, "Burdens on business; over-regulation". However, we must acknowledge that there are huge responsibilities. If a company's headquarters are in London, that is for the convenience of the company. It will have all the advantages of being in London and all the advantages of being able to adjust its accounts to minimise tax in the higher-tax regimes.
	I then come to the real question on which I want to focus: how can we get more coherence into the international regulatory regime? This is a sine qua non for raising Africa's economic performance—which, incidentally, is absolutely dreadful. Africa's GDP is one-tenth that of Europe, even at the present purchasing power parity. I ask the Minister whether there is a real understanding of the relationship between the international tax treaties, the UN, the OECD and the other bodies in this field. If that were better understood and there were no chink between them, it might be a big step forward.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I echo the warm congratulations expressed by every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate to the All-Party Group on its production of this report. I also congratulate my noble friend not only on participating in the evidence-gathering session but now on bringing it to the attention of the House. It deserves far more thorough examination than we can give it in this short hour, and I hope that when the Government publish their promised response to the 38 recommendations, that will be followed by a debate in government time—preferably before the Summer Recess.
	As my noble friend said, the report concentrates on what the UK should be doing, and it gives credit to the Government for some of the measures that they have already undertaken. I mention, in particular, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, to which 20 countries are now committed, but the report warns against regarding that as a panacea. Most have not published data on revenue and payments, and some of the 20 are the worst offenders in the Transparency International index of corruption. For example, Equatorial Guinea, which is the third largest producer in sub-Saharan Africa, with $70 billion worth of oil reserves, is almost at the bottom of the league table. Here, the horse has bolted because, as the report makes clear, President Obiang has already plundered the state revenues to the tune of $700 million with the aid of Riggs Bank, as a US Senate inquiry found. It was alleged that some of the money was later transferred into HSBC accounts controlled by Obiang in Luxembourg and Cyprus, but the banking laws in those countries prevented the US authorities pursuing their inquiries. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken at EU level to ensure that crooked governments and their agents are unable to shop around Europe for the most secretive banking system—a position that we used to hold but no longer do?
	The extractive industries are not the only activity where corruption siphons off wealth belonging to the people of African countries. Forestry is a sector to which far greater attention should be paid because illegal logging also contributes to global warming, threatening not only Africans but everyone living on the planet. I congratulate the British NGO Global Witness, whose evidence helped to convict Guus Kouwenhoven in The Hague a couple of weeks ago of violating the UN embargo on Liberia. But should we leave it to under-resourced NGOs to detect the misuse of forestry, or should there be, as the report suggests, a forestry transparency initiative as an analogue of the EITI?
	The APPG also points the finger at the construction industry, which it says is highly prone to corruption, and it cites the notorious example of the $8.1 billion LNG plant at Bonny, in Nigeria, where a British solicitor, Jeffrey Tesler, is alleged to have managed a $180 million slush fund provided by the winning consortium, of which a subsidiary of Halliburton, TSKJ, was the leading member. I note that we still deal with Halliburton. We do not decline to do business with it because one of its subsidiaries was alleged to have conducted an illegal operation in Nigeria. Mr Tesler's Gibraltar-based company, Tri-Star, was reported to have received $51 million for these services. To take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Northover about prosecutions, Mr Tesler still operates and has not been had up in this country, although he has been the subject of a French judicial inquiry.
	If what Mr Tesler did was not an offence under our law, it shows that we badly need tighter legislation, which must be matched by similar provisions in the offshore dependencies of the Crown. The APPG is rightly concerned about the delay in moving towards a draft corruption Bill, as my noble friend mentioned, on which a Joint Committee reported nearly two years ago. We now have to move to substantive legislation, which must cover the new recommendations by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and the Third EU Money Laundering Directive. It has to be implemented in any case by December 2007, but the APPG is looking for much more prompt action. Clearly we will be unable to fit it into this timetable, but it must be given priority in the next Session. I hope that the noble Baroness will undertake to support my noble friend Lord Chidgey's Bill, which if it goes through with Hugh Bayley's Bill in another place, could be passed very quickly into law.
	Finally, the report mentions the need to encourage ratification of the African Union Convention Against Corruption, to which only 12 of the 53 AU member states have signed up. But it is far more important that states fully understand the commitment and are prepared to implement it robustly, rather than merely putting their name to it. If the AU were able to offer member states a consultancy service on how to build the capacity and the mechanisms needed to implement the convention, it would be a step in the right direction. The Commission for Africa suggested that Governments should draw up comprehensive capacity-building strategies, and the G8 said that first there should be early ratification of the convention, and secondly, that discussions should start on mechanisms to ensure implementation. That is something with which the United Kingdom, together with other states, could help the African Union to help African states.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on securing this important debate on the APPG report. I pay tribute, too, to Lawrence Cockcroft and the group who were the advisers for this report.
	The opening paragraph of chapter three sets out depressing problems in no uncertain terms. The noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord St John of Bletso, both said:
	"The World Bank estimates that US$1 trillion is paid in bribes each year globally".
	That is on top of an,
	"unknown figure for embezzlement of public funds, of the theft of public assets, by corrupt officials".
	Of course, we must not forget to include the estimated US$1.5 trillion of "tainted procurement" or the,
	"unquantified volume of fraud within the private sector".
	I appreciate the APPG's focus on Africa. Trevor Royle of the Sunday Herald said:
	"For far too long Africa and corruption have been the gin and tonic of the continent's political affairs. Add a little ice and lemon in the shape of bribes and pocket-lining and the cocktail is complete".
	As your Lordships have said, corruption is unfortunately a problem that affects not only Africa but significant other areas of the world—some often closer to home than we think. It is a problem that pervades all sectors of society. It is no wonder that this destruction of integrity is considered the single greatest obstacle to global development. The statistics on the cost of corruption are most upsetting. However, their costs reach well beyond monetary terms. Corruption can act as a glass ceiling for those trying to pull themselves out of poverty, reducing a country's annual growth by up to 4 per cent and tax revenues, if any are made, by 50 per cent.
	Assuming that the country in question is not also subject to civil war, an environment that I believe only breeds and encourages the infection that we are discussing, it is always the public services that are overpriced and underperforming, if available at all, owing to the amount of graft in the system—the very services that the poorest need most.
	Kenya has been a much-quoted example of where corruption permeates to the highest ministerial level. The outlook is dim. Foreign investment is discouraged and domestic growth retarded. These are not the precursors that countries need to meet their millennium development goals.
	This is a timely debate, with the arrival of the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill last Friday. It will enable us to debate fully the need for transparency in the aid process, and the effectiveness of both our aid programmes. Aid goes some way to addressing recommendation 6 of the AAPPG. I look forward to those debates.
	The report also picks up on issues continually raised by organisations such as Global Witness. The plight of illegal natural resource extraction and the corruption and human rights issues linked with it—known as "conflict diamonds", "conflict timber" and "conflict oil"—were discussed by my noble friend Lord Astor in a recent Unstarred Question. As such, I will not repeat the details. Suffice it to say that if we are to preach transparency, good governance and accountability, it is often a good idea to start at home. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, rightly mentioned that we should crack down on UK companies involved in corruption abroad, be it selling illegally logged flooring, or companies providing bribes for work bids in Africa.
	Beyond Global Witness's specific recommendations regarding natural resource industry, Transparency International criticised the Government in 2004 for not establishing an effective supervisory regime to regulate those who provide services to trusts and unlimited companies. What steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to address these concerns, and what assessment has been made of their success? In getting our own house in order, what steps have Her Majesty's Government taken since the release of this report three months ago to ensure that the Crown dependencies and overseas territories adhere to improving their own standards on corruption and money laundering? Will the Minister stand up to the report's accusation of,
	"a lack of political will at the highest levels to take a lead in fighting global corruption"?
	In the short time available for a huge and complex subject, I beg your Lordships' indulgence, as I have only been able to touch on a few of the recommendations. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to at least the seven headline recommendations, and inform us when a government response will be made, in full, to the 38 recommendations put forward. After all, the real losers, of course, are the ordinary hard-working people we are trying to help.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for securing today's debate and giving us an opportunity to discuss the very fine report from the Africa All-Party Parliamentary Group, The Other Side of the Coin. I am delighted that it has been so well received. In fact, this evening feels rather like a meeting of the AAPPG.
	The report of the Commission for Africa began with an Igbo proverb:
	"Not to know is bad. Not to wish to know is worse".
	In Africa, in international institutions, and certainly in the UK, we know there is a huge global problem relating to corruption. We know that, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
	"The corrosive effect of corruption undermines all efforts to improve governance and foster development".
	Most importantly, this Government accept their responsibility to support African Governments in their battle against corruption. I must refute the allegation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about the lack of political will. The Government have shown extraordinary political will in their fight for Africa and against corruption in Africa. It is also good to hear reports from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that the tide is turning in some countries in Africa. However, I tend to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that the situation is extremely depressing.
	The UK took a lead in ensuring that addressing poverty in Africa was a priority during its G8 presidency, and that G8 leaders made commitments to address corruption at the Gleneagles summit. As noble Lords have clearly demonstrated, the consequences of international and domestic corruption for poor people in poor countries are devastating. The costs to exchequers are extraordinary, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, as are the human costs, but it also creates a blight on investment and public sector development and holds back economic growth. That is why DfID supports a wide range of governance reforms to prevent, detect and take action against corruption. It is why in his speech, "Development Beyond Aid", at Chatham House on 23 February 2006, my right honourable colleague the Secretary of State for International Development highlighted global corruption as one of the key themes of the upcoming White Paper on international development.
	The recommendations of the AAPPG fall into three broad categories: those where the Government are already working towards implementation; those where action plans are currently being developed and will be announced in the near future; and those where significant further work is required to determine how best to address the issues. The vast majority of the recommendations fall into the first two categories, and we warmly welcome the way in which the report raises awareness and provides an impetus for action.
	Sadly, it is not possible in this all-too-short debate to comment on all recommendations in detail, so I will concentrate on the six headline recommendations and answer as many questions as possible. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that there should be a longer debate is a matter for the usual channels, but I would support that.
	The first recommendation calls on the Government rigorously to enforce existing laws and sanctions against international bribery and money laundering. We have strengthened our enforcement framework and I assure noble Lords that we are firmly committed to enforcing those laws. The Serious Fraud Office now leads on vetting, monitoring and investigating allegations of overseas bribery. The Crown Prosecution Service has been restructured and now includes a fraud unit staffed by specialist prosecutors, which is likely to be in charge of future files involving overseas bribery.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we agree that we need to do more, but I stress that currently there are cases moving through the long and complex legal processes. For example, Joshua Dariye, the governor of Plateau State in Nigeria, had his UK-based assets seized in December last year. We are making efforts to return them to Nigeria and his appeal is in progress. Indeed, there are 35 overseas bribery allegations currently being vetted to see if there is sufficient evidence to open a case and there are 13 active investigations in England and Wales and one in Scotland.
	The second headline recommendation is to bring a new anti-corruption Bill before Parliament before the end of this year. The Government agree that the law of bribery is in need of reform. That is why, in December last year, we issued a consultation paper setting out options for reform. Most of the respondents seem to have taken differing views, but shortly we hope to publish a response covering all the comments received.
	Bribery is a hard crime to pin down in a way that balances the interests of all stakeholders, as previous attempts to reform the law have shown. The AAPPG's views will be taken fully into account along with the views of other stakeholders, and of course the views expressed by noble Lords this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker mentioned the Bill recently introduced by my honourable friend Hugh Bayley in another place. Of course, that is being studied closely and it will be taken account of in the Bill to which the Government remain committed. These are complex issues and we have to get them right; we have to ensure that the Bill is workable in the courts, which is why the process is perhaps taking longer than many noble Lords would wish.
	I am grateful for the offer, or the suggestion, from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, that he should table a Private Member's Bill in the Lords. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to introducing a Bill. They are carefully considering a plethora of views that have been presented. We want to continue building a consensus around a new Bill. However, ultimately it will be up to the noble Lord whether he brings forward his own Bill.
	The third recommendation calls on the Government to implement the third European Union money laundering directive before December 2007. The Government are confident that we will implement the directive by December 2007, and a consultation document on our proposed implementation will be published shortly. The directive provides for a co-ordinated EU-wide approach to tackling money laundering and terrorist financing, and requires banks to perform enhanced due diligence for non-domestic politically exposed persons. I am pleased to report that UK banks are already taking steps to implement these requirements.
	My noble friend Lord Lea spoke of the international framework. As the report made clear, this is a global problem which requires a global response. That is why we are working within the context of the G8 and OECD. The context works. For years, we advocated in the OECD development assistance committee that development agencies must influence their governments, and that is now widely accepted. A couple of weeks ago, in the same committee, we took a strong lead in advocating that all donors try to influence their governments to address supply-side corruption, and we trust that that will work in the same way.
	In relation to international tax treaties, the OECD has recently started an initiative on them, and I will seek to find out more information for my noble friend.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that we should work with the African Union so that it can provide assistance and guidance to those African countries that wish to sign up to and implement the African Union Convention Against Corruption and the UN convention. That seems to be a very sensible idea, and I will certainly take it back to the department. However, it might also be something that we should discuss with colleagues in the European Parliament in view of the fact that the AU receives substantial funding from the EU.
	The fourth recommendation, to
	"Ensure that Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories deal with corruption . . . as robustly as the UK",
	is problematic in tone. That is because it does not fully recognise the complexity of the constitutional arrangements between the UK and those territories. The UK overseas territories are aware of the threats posed by money laundering and corruption and the risks they carry for the reputation of their economies. The Government will continue to encourage them to counter those threats and ensure that they have robust legislation in place, in particular on financial regulations, as well as adequate enforcement capacity, and to put relevant international agreements into force. Where possible, we will offer practical help.
	The fifth recommendation calls for Government to,
	"Report to Parliament annually on international development spending".
	As noble Lords will be aware, Tom Clarke's Bill, which I am delighted to say has completed its passage through the other place, will require us to report not only on aid, but also on how other issues affect development. I look forward to the Bill's Second Reading on 29 June when it will be introduced by my noble friend Lady Whitaker.
	The sixth recommendation calls for the appointment of an anti-corruption champion. We fully agree that there is a need to improve policy coherence between the large number of government departments and agencies whose work is associated with international anti-corruption and money laundering. We further agree that there should be clear responsibility for co-ordinating policy coherence and implementation across Whitehall. The strategy for realising this recommendation is currently being discussed by Ministers, but I am optimistic.
	Several noble Lords quite rightly raised the issue of China. China has ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption and that, together with domestic auditing reforms, shows that China is interested in discussing good governance. The Government are committed to joining international partners in a dialogue on corruption.
	In relation to the Company Law Reform Bill, I will respond in writing and send a copy of my letter to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
	The matter of Nigeria and the Abacha money was raised by my noble friend Lord Lea. No money has been returned to Nigeria from the UK, although some assets are currently restrained under a civil order. It is unlikely that significant funds remain here. Evidence supports the view that the UK was used as a transit route, rather than as a deposit, for most of the money. The UK stands ready to assist any international partner, including Nigeria, with requests for mutual legal assistance in accordance with our domestic law and in line with our international obligations. There is a UK initiative to provide mutual legal assistance training to Nigerian personnel to assist them in making requests, and the Home Office played a leading role in a recent training seminar in Abuja.
	In relation to the case of a solicitor alleged to have carried out a corrupt act in Nigeria, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases. The Government's consultation paper of December 2005 made a proposal to enhance the powers of the Serious Fraud Office to assist it in investigating allegations of bribery overseas so that they can be cleared up.
	The AAPPG is to be warmly congratulated on the publication of The Other Side of the Coin. It draws attention to the scale of the challenges, makes a set of complex issues accessible and will act as a catalyst for further change.
	The Government's response to the report will of course be published in the near future. I regret that it has taken some time, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, acknowledged it is a cross-department responsibility. The Other Side of the Coin has already been influential in shaping the global corruption aspects of the White Paper. I am confident that many of the concerns expressed today will be alleviated when the full extent of the Government's commitment on those issues is made known. Like the AAPPG and noble Lords who have participated today, the Government remain committed to Africa and to tackling corruption, which is a critical obstacle to its development.

Health Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 5 [Vehicles]:

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 3, line 44, at end insert—
	"( ) Subject to prescribed conditions, regulations under subsection (1) may provide that where a vehicle is being used by no more than one person at a time, even if it is a place of work, it is not smoke-free."

Earl Howe: My Lords, I return without apology to an amendment I tabled in Grand Committee, which relates to vehicles being used for business purposes,
	"by no more than one person at a time".
	If we set aside for one moment all the arguments for and against the smoke-free provisions of the Bill and simply focus on our duty to create workable and credible legislation, I worry greatly that if we are not careful we will succeed in making the law under this clause look like an ass.
	To prohibit smoking in a business vehicle being used by two or more people at the same time has an obvious logic, if we take as read the scientific advice about passive smoking. Some noble Lords may disagree with that advice, but, if one takes it as a given, the logic is there. The logic starts to look thin where we try to argue that someone driving a lorry or farm tractor on his own should be prohibited from smoking because of the risk that someone subsequently taking over may inhale his second-hand smoke.
	To my mind the case for carrying the law this far is extremely thin for two reasons. First, it ignores the substantial dispersal effect on smoke when opening the door of a lorry or tractor cab and letting ordinary air in. To say that there is a potentially lethal health risk from someone getting into the cab after the previous driver has been smoking there seems to me to be ridiculous. If there is any residual smoke present it will disappear rapidly. It is doubly ridiculous to make no allowance whatever for the possibility of there being a substantial interval between one driver leaving the cab and another getting in. We understand that the regulations will make that consideration irrelevant, whereas simple common sense would say that it is highly relevant.
	In making that point, I do not deny in the slightest that the smell of stale tobacco smoke in upholstery and so on may linger in the cab if someone has been smoking there. But, as I said in Grand Committee, we must be careful to distinguish things that pose a genuine public health risk from things that are merely unpleasant. We are not here to legislate against what is unpleasant.
	The second reason why the case is thin for banning smoking by lone drivers is the impossibility of effective enforcement. This clause as a whole carries with it huge problems in enforcement, but the problems are magnified several-fold when we examine this issue with any care. If two people are travelling in a lorry cab and one of them is smoking, an obvious offence is being committed within the terms of the clause. If a lone lorry driver is smoking, he is committing no offence if the vehicle is used only by him and by no one else. But he is committing an offence if the vehicle is used by another person at other times. Are we really to imagine that this distinction is one which enforcement officers will be able to verify on the spot? How will an enforcement officer feel confident about issuing a penalty notice to a driver who is smoking if that driver asserts that he is always the sole user of the vehicle? I suggest that it would be virtually impossible and that the enforcement officer would be put into a completely invidious position, which he should not be put in in the first place.
	When I tabled this amendment in Grand Committee, the Minister did not produce any proper counter arguments. He merely asserted that where one driver follows another and the first one has been smoking, the second one would be exposed to the risks of second-hand smoke. I respectfully suggest that that answer ignores reality and common sense.
	The Minister also referred to the response from the Road Haulage Association to last year's consultation. The association advised that,
	"most of our members do have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles".
	I do not seek to discount or belittle that reply in the least, but it is not a basis for arguing that smoking on your own in a business vehicle should become a criminal offence. Rather it is an argument for saying that activities which are merely a nuisance should be dealt with by means of private codes of practice.
	The Minister will, I am sure, seek to argue, as he did before, that when someone has been smoking in a vehicle, noxious substances containing carcinogens could still be present when another person gets into it. That is the essence of his justification. I am saying what I said before, that this Bill is not designed—and never was—to protect people from all possible exposure to second-hand smoke, no matter how tiny. There is, or there should be, a common-sense cut-off point in these matters. I suggest that the cut-off point has been drawn in the wrong place and I sincerely hope that, even now, the Minister will agree to think again. I beg to move.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my amendment to leave out Clause 5 has been grouped with the noble Earl's amendment. I, of course, agree with everything that he said. The clause should be left out completely because it will be virtually impossible to enforce even if people know what is supposed to be enforced, which will be very difficult when one reads this clause.
	There was a lengthy and somewhat amusing debate, at times, on the clause in the Grand Committee. The clause enables Ministers to introduce regulations making vehicles smoke-free, which they intend to do. I do not wish to steal the Minister's thunder but perhaps I can précis what the Minister said about the regulations that the Government intend to make—that is, that business vehicles will be smoke-free, thus providing, it is claimed, consistency with the smoke-free provisions that apply to enclosed and substantially enclosed places But, as the Minister said, the vast majority of public transport is already smoke-free. Therefore one could ask why this legislation is necessary.
	The Minister also said that it is his intention that private vehicles will be exempted, including rental vehicles, it being a matter for passengers in those cars to decide whether they want to travel with someone who is smoking. But, as we have already heard from the noble Earl, it will be very difficult to define that. I simply do not know how it is going to be defined, let alone enforced.
	This is a very sweeping clause. It permits regulations making any vehicle smoke-free. Ministers' current intentions may be to confine regulations to vehicles used for business, but those intentions and regulations could change at any time—that is the whole problem—and of course we are very restricted and constricted when matters are put before us by order.
	What seem to be the present intentions in detail? Where a car is used by only that person for work, it will not be smoke-free, according to the Minister. However, vehicles used as a place of work or business vehicles will be smoke-free unless the vehicle is only ever used and owned by one person. I do not know whether I have got that right. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.
	We have been told that a shared vehicle would have to be smoke-free at all times. The Minister cites in support of his proposal that the Road Haulage Association has advised that most of its member companies already have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles. The job is apparently already being done, so why is it necessary to lay it down in this sort of legislation?
	Your Lordships may be confused by that explanation of the Government's intentions and it may pose questions, as it did in Grand Committee. When is a vehicle enclosed or substantially enclosed? What is the precise position of a privately owned vehicle that the owner sometimes uses for business purposes when he may carry passengers? I could go on, but the Minister will probably tell me to await the regulations that will provide the details. As I have already said, that is not good enough. These matters should be in the Bill because they are so important. I will not refer again to the report of the Economic Affairs Committee as we debated its findings earlier today. But that committee said that the failure to consider these matters in this and other parts of the Bill had resulted in the introduction of a policy that appears to demonstrate a disproportionate response to the problem. I entirely agree with that.
	I have made inquiries of all the major databases on this topic and I have not found one single piece of research on the health risks of second-hand smoke in vehicles. I should be grateful if the Minister could point me to any evidence that he has that I have not been able to find. I have a feeling that the Minister's response will be to claim that components of second-hand smoke continue to linger in the air long after smoking has taken place. Well, that could be said about anything. It could be said about vehicle fumes, for example, which, as we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister, cause 20,000 deaths every year. We must take this matter very seriously and try to find out just what is going to happen.
	The claim that exposure to second-hand smoke in a vehicle represents a serious risk to the non-smoker is implausible. It is not proven. There is no scientific evidence that there is a risk and it appears that no one has bothered to waste time undertaking an obviously pointless exercise. It is pointless, because if one is travelling in a vehicle, one is inevitably travelling behind some other vehicle and the emissions from that vehicle will be far more dangerous—probably 100 times more so—than the cigarette being smoked. Clause 5 is illogical. If the evidence is absent then the Government's own risk policy guidelines are not fulfilled. It follows that Clause 5 offends another of the Government's guidelines, which is proportionality.
	What concerns me here, and what concerned me in Grand Committee, is enforcement. How on earth will this be enforced? We never got a proper answer to that question. We understand that the enforcement authorities will be the local authorities. Where on earth will they get the qualified staff to enforce this on thousands of miles of motorway, ordinary roads, and country lanes? With 35 million vehicles, how on earth will they do it? The fact is that they cannot. That is something they dream of; they think that it will be self-enforcing. Well, it will not be self-enforcing.
	We have a ban on using mobile telephones in cars and other vehicles, yet you hardly ever see a car or lorry without the driver using a mobile phone.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I know what the noble Lord is going to say. He said it in Committee.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I did not say it in Committee. The law on the use of mobiles in cars is on the point of changing. The Road Safety Bill, which is in another place, provides for the first time the introduction of penalty points for people convicted of the offence. The road safety organisations believe that combining a fine with the implementation of the points system will mean that the level of enforcement and observance will be a great deal higher. Perhaps the same will apply here.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is not the point I was making. You can make the penalties even more severe, but first you have to catch people smoking. That is the great problem—how on earth do you catch them? If you cannot catch people who are not wearing seat belts and you cannot catch people who are using mobile telephones, how will you catch them smoking a cigarette?
	There will not be an army of enforcers. The police say that they will not enforce the ban, so there will be inspectors, presumably in cars, patrolling the motorways, the byways and the countryside. I said in Committee that my mind boggled at the task being imposed on local authorities and the Minister thought that that was rather amusing. But it is not amusing. We have to have the answer to this question before we pass the legislation. It is no good having legislation unless it can be enforced.
	The Government have no plans about how to enforce a non-smoking policy on 35 million vehicles parading up and down our country every day. What is more, a lot of them are foreign. Foreign lorries coming here will not be aware of the no-smoking legislation because none of our European partners—or whatever they are—has this smoking policy. So how will they know? How is that to be enforced? It does not matter to them about penalty points. This is a complete and utter nonsense.
	I would like to hear how the Government will enforce this impossible ban. If the Minister can convince me, I should be very much obliged, but I feel certain that he will not be able to do so.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I, too, agree with everything the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said and essentially with everything the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, which is why I added my name to Amendment No. 11. I must make one correction, however. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the Deputy Prime Minister had said that 20,000 people a year die from exposure to traffic fumes. Actually, what the Deputy Prime Minister said six years ago, backed up by his department, was that 24,000 people a year die prematurely from exposure to traffic fumes and industrial pollution. That vastly exceeds the most exaggerated estimate of the number of people who die each year from passive smoking.
	I should like to give an example of how illogical the clause is. Let us take two small plumbing firms. The first is a one-man band, and the one man in question is a smoker. He will be allowed to smoke wherever and whenever he wants in his white van—or a van sprayed any colour of the rainbow. The rival firm is a two-man partnership, but both partners are smokers. They both smoke, let us say, roughly 20 a day. However, they are not allowed to smoke in the firm's van, white or otherwise, even if they are not travelling together, unless the Government are prepared to accept the noble Earl's amendment. For example, if the arrangement is that Bill goes out on calls on even-numbered days of the month leaving Jack to take care of the office, the telephone and so forth and the position is reversed on odd-numbered days of the month, it would still be theoretically illegal, although of course totally unenforceable since the Government appear to be claiming that tobacco smoke is so deadly—it is not only tobacco smoke because, as we learnt in Grand Committee, herbal cigarettes are now deemed by the Government to be almost as deadly—that it would poison the car for days afterwards rather like sarin in the Tokyo underground system.
	If that were really so, one would have to ban smoking in hire cars. Firms which rent out cars may request their clients not to smoke, and some do, but most do not. However, they would have to ban smoking in those cars and even in hotel rooms, because hotel rooms are much less well ventilated than cars. As the noble Earl said, cars are automatically ventilated when people open the doors and windows.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about the necessity of workable and credible legislation. The utterly disproportionate overkill represented by the clause as it stands brings the law into ridicule and contempt, which cannot be desirable from anyone's point of view.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment because it is a completely unnecessary clause. Anyone wanting a high level of entertainment should take the opportunity to read the Hansard report of Grand Committee when we debated this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that it was amusing in parts. In my humble view it was actually hysterical. Indeed, although I was present during the Grand Committee, I read the report on the train going north to Scotland, and one of the senior conductors on the train came to check that I was all right because I was actually crying with laughter.
	The most important thing about this is that the provision would be completely impractical and impossible to enforce. Surely, our hard-stretched police forces have much better things to do than check whether people are smoking in vehicles. Therefore, I give this amendment my fullest possible support.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I support both the amendments that have been spoken to. In Grand Committee, I asked the Minister about convertible cars. His answer to me at the time was that he suspected that most convertible cars were private vehicles, but I have to tell them that there is a plethora of convertible cars around and a large proportion of those are owned by companies for the use of their employees or leased by a member of staff. It is not an insignificant amount so we need further clarification on whether a convertible car owned by a company is caught within this legislation when its roof is up but not when its roof is down. I look forward to the Minister giving more clarification on that.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House too long, but I want to point out that, without this clause, we again have a problem for the National Assembly for Wales. The clause states that regulations may be made for the descriptions of vehicles, circumstances and so forth. Some of the things that have been said do not seem to be included in the Bill as it stands, but this clause allows regulations to be made. The National Assembly for Wales is very clear that it wants to have the ability to make such regulations because some vehicles are used as public transport in Wales. The concern is that they would then be outside the scope of the Bill should the clause be removed.
	I do not want to revisit all the other arguments but I will simply point out that the reason why there is no specific research on vehicles and vehicles only relates to the complexity of having a control group if you are going to look at the full range of diseases. But with asthma, which is a disease that is triggered by exposure to the toxic substance, there is good evidence from patients for whom getting into smoky vehicles—we have already heard about it tonight—triggers an asthma attack. We should not forget that every year there are people who actually die from their asthma attacks.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I appreciate everything that the noble Baroness says about people getting into vehicles or smoky atmospheres, but it is not only tobacco smoke that causes people with asthma to have an attack. My son, for example, suffered from asthma, and he was perfectly happy in a room full of cigarette smoke, whereas as soon as a cat entered the room he had an attack. So should we get rid of cats?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I tried to set out the Government's intentions regarding smoke-free vehicles in great detail during Grand Committee, but it is clear that I did not satisfy a number of noble Lords. Nevertheless, in addressing these amendments, I begin by making it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention to include private vehicles, including rental vehicles for private use, under smoke-free legislation.
	The Government listened to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and in Grand Committee put forward an amendment under which regulations on smoke-free vehicles would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is where we are now. The Government will propose in regulations that the only vehicles to be required to be smoke-free will be those that are used for the transportation of members of the public or those used for work purposes by more than one person. Within regulations, the Government intend that only vehicles or parts of vehicles that are wholly or partly covered by a roof will be required to be smoke-free.
	This means that vehicles used for work purposes by more than one person, regardless of whether they are in the vehicle at the same time, will be required to be smoke-free at all times. This would be applicable to any vehicle used for work, regardless of whether it is a heavy goods vehicle, a delivery van or a farming vehicle, on the basis that the vehicle was enclosed. This provides the same level of protection for workers' vehicles as that provided for workers in non-mobile workplaces in Clause 2. This is not an incoherent provision; it is an absolutely consistent provision with the rest of the Bill in terms of enclosed workplaces. I note that in response to the consultation for this Bill conducted last summer, the Road Haulage Association advised, and it is worth saying yet again, that,
	"most of our members do have smoking policies that prohibit smoking in shared vehicles".
	It does not say that all their members have such a policy, and not everybody is a member of the association. However, the association said that it had no objections to the policy intention to ensure that virtually all enclosed workplaces are smoke-free. We need to listen to what the employers' interests are saying; they wish to protect their members and employees in these circumstances, and they are arguing for consistency between mobile workplaces and non-mobile workplaces. That seems an incredibly coherent point of view.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, but what he is saying is ridiculous. He is saying that he wishes to protect a worker within a car from smoking who may anyway be a smoker. What nonsense that is.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord would listen to what I am saying. When a vehicle is driven by an individual and not shared with anybody else, it is not covered by the provisions; when the vehicle is shared with somebody else and is a workplace, that other worker is entitled to the same protection as a worker in a non-mobile workplace. That is a coherent and consistent point of view that the Government are arguing in this legislation. I have to say that it is those who are arguing against the provision who do not have consistency between mobile and non-mobile workplaces.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I have done a little research on Europe. It seems that the whole of Europe is inconsistent and we are about the only country that will, allegedly, be consistent. The Minster mentioned the Road Haulage Association, which I also checked on. Essentially, its membership is composed of heavy goods vehicle drivers. We also have thousands upon thousands of white van drivers. Frankly, the provision is just totally unworkable.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I stand by what I have said: we are consistent between mobile and non-mobile workplaces. I accept that many noble Lords do not share our position. We could stay here all night arguing about whether we agree with each other's positions; I would still say the same thing at the end of the night and would still be up here arguing that we are consistent in this area. I remind noble Lords that Ireland and Scotland—those closest to home, so to speak—have the same provisions. I understand that some noble Lords do not agree with us.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt and I am obliged to the Minister for giving way, but can he explain to me why, for example, in a company vehicle used by two people who both smoke, both should not be allowed to smoke? I do not understand the logic when both people want to smoke.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the point is very simple. If I were allowed to continue with my peroration, I would be able to explain it to noble Lords. The point is simply that if there is more than one person sharing a vehicle, an employer would not necessarily know whether the second person was always going to be a smoker. The point here is that we are trying to protect people who are going to share that vehicle with another person who may be a smoker. We are trying to cut out the risk to the other person. The arguments are exactly the same in relation to other enclosed workplaces. It is just that the workplace is mobile in the case of a vehicle and not mobile in other circumstances. If I may be allowed to go on to develop the arguments further, smoking will be permitted in vehicles that are for the sole use of the driver and are not used for work purposes by anyone else, either as a driver or a passenger, as I said in Grand Committee. This is totally consistent with the provisions for places of work in Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill.
	A number of noble Lords have raised the question of whether or not people are at risk. Second-hand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. Some of these have marked irritant properties and some 50 are known or suspected human carcinogens, including heavy metals and substances known to be reproductive toxins. The World Health Organisation has classified tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogen. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A human carcinogen, with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas in the same category. Most important, some 85 per cent of second-hand smoke consists of invisible, odourless gases—a fact that does not seem to be well recognised. We believe that we are being responsible in giving people protection against exposure to this. We believe that it is right to give workers who share a vehicle that same protection against second-hand smoke exposure as we are giving to people who share other sorts of workplaces. Noble Lords can see that the Government's intentions with respect to smoke-free vehicles are entirely consistent with our approach towards smoke-free public places and workplaces. That is the essence of why we believe we need this clause.
	Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 10, because much of what I have been saying, as robustly as I can, has dealt with Amendment No. 11. While we do not agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 10, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I also have to point out that it is completely unnecessary, as the effect of it could, if we so wished, be delivered under the current drafting. The amendment seeks to ensure that the regulations can make provision for a vehicle that is being used by no more than one person at a time to be smoke-free. While we do not agree with this proposition, the way in which Clause 1 is drafted already enables us to do that. Subsection (1) provides a power to make regulations providing for vehicles to be smoke-free, and subsection (2)(b) makes it clear that this power can be used to specify the circumstances in which they are to be smoke-free. So although we do not agree with the intention behind the amendment, even if we did, it would be unnecessary.
	The reason why we do not agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 10 is quite simple. We know, for the reasons that I have explained, that second-hand smoke can linger, often for extended periods, in the enclosed space. We believe that giving people the protection that I have outlined is absolutely essential. I say again that we have no intention to require private vehicles to be smoke-free through this legislation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made a considerable number of points on enforcement. Let me be clear: enforcement requires signage. It will be for the owner of a vehicle used as a workplace by more than one person to ensure that signage is in place. It will therefore be clear, as signage is required, when smoking is not allowed. Enforcement is therefore, I would suggest, not as complex as I think the noble Lord has suggested. We know that where smoking has been banned in other countries there has been a good deal of compliance. I am not sure why we do not think that there may not be the same compliance when this legislation is on the statute book. As for transparency and consistency, it seems to the Government that treating vehicles in exactly the same way as other workplaces is entirely fair and proportionate.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I understand the Minister's argument about mobile workplaces, but how will he define a private vehicle?

Lord Warner: My Lords, a "private vehicle" is what it says. It is a private vehicle. If it is not used by more than one person as a work vehicle, it will not be covered by these provisions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has made much about traffic fumes. I should just like to quote from the evidence that Professor Sir Richard Peto gave to the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, whose report we discussed earlier. He was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston:
	"I am just trying to see if you can break it down into categories. Presumably, non-smoking shepherds would be much healthier than non-smoking traffic wardens".
	He was, I think, making a similar point to the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The answer from Sir Richard Peto was:
	"There probably would not be a very big difference".
	This is the relevant point:
	"The amount of exposure from cigarette smoke is so much greater than the amount that you would get from the ambient air outside in the city, certainly nowadays, that there is not so much difference between non-smokers in urban and rural populations".
	The point that he is making is that there are similar levels of risk. There is no great difference between the level of risk in the two substances.
	I believe that we do not need to accept either of these amendments. I hope that I have, as robustly as I can, made the Government's point clear.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the Minister when he was in full flow. However, he based his argument on the idea of protecting workers—by which I think he means those who are employed and receive a wage or salary—and that is not an unreasonable objective. However, he said nothing about the position of those who are not employed but are partners in a firm, people such as those whom I instanced in my example. Why should they need protection from each other? If they are both in a position of seniority and are of a like mind, why on earth should they not smoke if they both want to?
	Secondly, the Minister claims that dangerous substances remain in the air in a vehicle long after the last smoker has left it. Well, for how long? Is it one hour, or two or three, or 10 hours? Is it really to be believed that a car which has been returned to base, as it were, at 6 pm one evening is still poisonous to the next person who climbs into it at 8 am or 9 am the following day? Perhaps the noble Lord is right, but I should like a little more evidence.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not believe that I have to give that evidence, when the point we are making is that a workplace is a workplace. A vehicle that is driven by more than one person—whether those people are employees, partners or whomever—is being occupied as a mobile workplace which is covered by this legislation. We believe that they are then exposed to a dangerous substance, whether they wish to be or not. We are saying that there is consistency between the mobile and the non-mobile workplace.
	I have already given the evidence on human carcinogens in second-hand smoke, and the fact that it lingers. We cannot be sure of it being cleared in a reasonable period so that people are not exposed to those human carcinogens. That is the substance of the arguments that I set out in Grand Committee, which I repeat today. Those arguments will not change in the Government's view, which is why we believe that the legislation should stand as drafted.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I do not want to be pedantic, but in Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned that he travels to and from his home every day along the M4. Does the Minister assume that patrol cars will be looking at white vans or international lorries up and down the M4, just to check whether there are one or more persons in the cabs, and, if they are smoking, to pull them over? I really do not see how, in a practical sense, this will be enforceable.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord may not see it but we went through the enforcement provisions in Clause 10 at great length in Grand Committee. We are not on Clause 10 now and I do not propose to repeat all the arguments that I made then.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I asked a question which, with respect, I do not think the Minister addressed. When a convertible—which may be owned by a company that has two employees—has its roof up, is it covered by this legislation. When it has its roof down, is it not covered?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I answered the noble Earl's point when I said that, within the regulations, the Government intend that only vehicles or parts of vehicles that are wholly or partly covered by a roof will be required to be smoke-free. The details of that will need to be set out in the regulations.

Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been an important and necessary debate. Indeed, it would have been extraordinary if we had passed over the issue of vehicles without any comment. I am particularly grateful for the support that I received for my amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Stoddart, and other noble Lords.
	The Government seem to have resorted to arbitrary demarcation lines rather than come forward with more considered proposals recognising that there are degrees of risk. In other contexts, they have acknowledged that there are differing degrees of risk—for example, in the earlier amendment on theatrical performances, or in their welcome amendment to Clause 4, which acknowledges the same principle. I see my amendment as being much in the same vein as both those.
	(12)I was not convinced by the Minister's reply to my concerns about enforcement, and I took careful note of the powerful points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on that. Enforcement will be extremely problematic in vehicles, and we are likely to see widespread flouting of the law as a result, which is not an appealing prospect. I take heart from the support that I received from other noble Lords, and had we not reached this point in the evening I might have wished to test the opinion of the House. As it is, that would serve no useful purpose. I will reflect on what the Minister has said, and I hope that he in turn will reflect a little on the points made in the debate. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
	Leave out Clause 5.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I will not keep the House very long. The Minister has done his best to answer all the questions, but I fear that he and I are poles apart, and it is a dialogue of the deaf as far as we are concerned. I believe that the clause is wrong; it is wrong in principle, it is completely unworkable and it will bring the law into disrepute. Only time will tell which of us is right; but I guess that it will come down in my favour.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
	Clause 6 [No-smoking signs]:

Lord Naseby: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 4, line 38, leave out from "signs" to "are" in line 39 and insert "comprising the internationally recognised no-smoking symbol"

Lord Naseby: My Lords, the amendment is clear; it is about signage. It proposes that those places that must show signs under the Bill just need to show the international no-smoking symbol.
	I asked the Minister in Committee to check the situation in Europe, and I imagine that he has that information to hand. It will be interesting to hear how much signage is required elsewhere in the world. Secondly, I asked him in Committee to check the situation in those countries that have dual languages or large ethnic-minority communities in certain parts, and whether there are any requirements for language provision. I am looking forward to hearing the answer to that as well.
	For 20 years I was actively involved in the advertising world, for most of that time in a pretty senior capacity. The one thing that you learn about communication is that the more notices you put up, the less likely they are to be read. I have looked at the provisions in the consultation document, such as providing a telephone number. We all know what happens when you ring a telephone number out of hours; and most people would be in a pub or a restaurant so they would presumably be ringing out of hours. They would get an answering machine, they would have to push several buttons, and they would not reach anyone at the end of the line. The whole thing is an absolute farce. If you have a major complaint to make, you ring during office hours and you make it directly.
	(7)I see no objection to having a notice on all doors; I can understand why that provision is there. Frankly, the rest is totally unnecessary. Unless the Minister can give your Lordships clear evidence that the rest of Europe has shown a great need for the plethora of signs proposed, it seems much more sensible to accept my amendment. The Minister would find praise from all parts of the country—smokers and non-smokers—not least from people in the trade who would have to stump up the money to provide all the signs. For once, he might just be a hero. I am looking forward to a positive response to the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have to say, I am feeling quite heroic, having had two victories in the Division Lobby this afternoon. Whether I shall appear heroic to the noble Lord, I am not too sure.
	This grouping addresses amendments on no-smoking signs. Clause 6 ensures that no-smoking signs will designate smoke-free areas in premises, additional smoke-free places and vehicles. We do not intend for our requirements to result in an overabundance of signs, but signage will allow clear communication with smokers, so that it is clear to them where smoking is not permitted, and where they may therefore be breaking the law. The signs will also make it clear to non-smokers where they have a right to expect a smoke-free environment.
	Experience in other countries has shown that signs are a crucial part of implementing and enforcing smoke-free legislation. If we are introducing a new offence for smoking in a no-smoking area, or allowing someone to smoke in smoke-free premises, we must ensure that people know where they might be committing an offence. This might be especially important for foreign visitors, unfamiliar with our smoke-free laws. Signage, I understand, is required in Norway, Italy, Ireland and Scotland. But I am happy to make sure that full details are provided to the noble Lord and others.
	These amendments appear to demonstrate that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is concerned about the Government introducing unnecessary signage requirements. I stress that our intention is completely the opposite: we wish to make signage requirements as light-touch as possible. We do not want this to be a significant burden on businesses.
	Our plans for signage will be included in public consultation on regulations that will be published shortly. However, our broad intentions are that signs in smoke-free premises should include the international smoke-free sign and a brief message stating that the premises are smoke-free by law. We believe that clear wording on signs is necessary in premises as, for the first time, smoking will be prohibited by law in virtually all enclosed, and substantially enclosed, public places and workplaces. Some no-smoking signage currently exists in premises, but it is largely advisory. It is important to ensure that people know it will be against the law to smoke in these places.
	In vehicles, however, we do not think that the additional message will necessarily be needed, as it is already the norm for most public vehicles to be smoke-free, often by legislation. As I have said, signage provisions within the regulations will be subject to consultation shortly.
	I wish to reassure your Lordships that the Department of Health wants to do everything it can to support businesses in the lead-up to implementation. We will make signs that meet regulatory requirements readily available free of charge. For example, we intend to provide these signs with guidance to businesses on implementing the legislation, to put downloadable copies on our website and to keep stocks to send out to businesses that request them. I would say that, by including powers to specify signage requirements in regulations, the requirements can be changed. There may be some point in time, once smoke-free legislation has firmly bedded in, when all that is needed on no-smoking signs is the internationally recognised no-smoking symbol.
	If we accept this amendment, however, we would lock this requirement on to the Bill, rather than providing the necessary flexibility to specify the most suitable signage. Given the importance of signage in communicating and enforcing smoke-free legislation, together with the benefits of maintaining regulatory flexibility in this area, the Government cannot accept these amendments. Although not heroic, it is a fair statement of why the Government believe we need signage to be provided for—in accordance with the regulations that we will be consulting on—on a light-touch basis and with as much help as we can give businesses.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister did not do what he promised in Grand Committee: check exactly what signage is used across Europe. My limited survey suggests that it is extremely light-touch, because people recognise that the international no-smoking sign means what it says. Across most of Europe a no-entry sign is pretty obvious: you do not go down there. You do not need half a dozen extra signs. On occasion, people ring up to make a complaint about someone who is going the other way. So I plead with the Minister to start from the position that, yes, the international no-smoking sign will be prominently displayed on every entry to affected premises. That would seem a sensible starting point. I cannot conceive that the Government will not have some form of television advertising, such as "Clunk Click, Every Trip" or some of the other road-safety slogans. I imagine that there will be considerable publicity when the Bill becomes law. After all, these signs relate only to point-of-sale material and are only a part of what is required.
	It is vital that our pubs do not end up with a plethora of information that someone thinks is valuable. The international no-smoking sign is quite clear: it means "no smoking". If the Minister starts from that end with his consultation, it will be welcomed. But I should be grateful if, before Third Reading, he would indicate to those of us who have taken an interest in this matter exactly what happens in the rest of Europe. If I am right, I hope that we will follow the lead suggested by Europe—other than, perhaps, Scotland and Ireland, which are both very small and, in terms of this issue, pretty minor beer, if I may use that phrase. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 4, line 45, leave out "descriptions of person" and insert "on persons of a description"

Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20, which is very similar to Amendment No. 13. These amendments raise what I freely acknowledge is a minor drafting issue, but I hope that noble Lords will agree that there is some substance to them. Clause 6(2) states:
	"The duty is to be imposed on persons or descriptions of person specified in the regulations".
	In Grand Committee, I suggested that, simply in terms of good English, the wording here could be more felicitous because one cannot logically impose a duty on a description. A duty is imposed on a person. I have raised the issue again in the hope that the Minister will feel able to make this small adjustment. I beg to move.

Lord Warner: My Lords, we believe that Amendments Nos. 13 and 20 improve the clarity of the Bill. The Government support these sensible amendments and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for tabling them.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 5, line 28, at end insert "(and references to smoke-free premises include premises which by virtue of regulations under section 3(4A) are smoke-free except in relation to performers)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 16:
	After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
	"DURATION OF SECTION 6
	(1) The provisions of section 6 shall remain in force until three years after their commencement and shall then expire unless continued in force by an order under subsection (2).
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide—
	(a) that all or any of those provisions which are in force shall continue in force for a period not exceeding twelve months from the coming into operation of the order; or
	(b) that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force.
	(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."

Earl Howe: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 returns us to the question that we debated in Grand Committee of whether the perceived utility and benefit of having no-smoking signs displayed in all public buildings, workplaces, pubs, bars and restaurants are likely to remain constant or whether, over time, they are likely to diminish. I suggest that the latter is very much the case. Indeed, if we accept that there may be an initial case for signage of this kind—although personally I do not—we should also recognise that after a period of time the burdens on business that it imposes will almost certainly no longer be justifiable.
	The Government's arguments for making signage a legal requirement are that it will inform the public and make life easier for visitors to our country; it will help pub and club managers to avoid disputes on their premises; and it will help with enforcement. Frankly, we could apply those arguments to any area of the law we chose. The speed limit on motorways is 70 mph but we do not put up notices every few hundred yards reminding drivers of that. We do not put up speed-limit notices at all on most dual or single carriageways. Drivers are expected to know what the legal speed limit is. It might make life easier for tourists if we had such notices; it might help with resolving disputes; and it might help with enforcement. But, generally speaking, we accept that everyone should be aware of the law and that, correspondingly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Signs of this sort are seen as being neither necessary nor appropriate.
	When the Bill was in its original form and it distinguished between pubs where smoking would still be allowed and pubs where it would not be allowed, there was certainly some merit in the idea of signage. Otherwise, anyone entering a pub could not have been expected to know what kind of pub it was. A similar argument applied to clubs. That argument falls away with the Bill as it now stands. All pubs, workplaces and enclosed places open to the public will be smoke-free. The situation is therefore very much simpler.
	I realise from our debates in Grand Committee that I am unlikely to persuade the Minister to do away with Clause 6 altogether. But, if I were in his shoes, I would do so without hesitation. The proposal is simply insane over-regulation, which takes no account whatever of the costs and burden to business. It does not begin to encourage people to stop and think about whether those burdens are proportionate to the risk of what the signage is trying to prevent, and it takes nannying to as yet unplumbed realms. We are talking not just of pubs, but of every public building in the land, and a great many types of vehicle used for business purposes.
	Pubs will be particularly hard hit, and I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the pub signage requirements that are currently in force. A pub by law must currently display its premises licence, details of the designated premises supervisor, price lists, weights and measures statutory notices, fire exits and tobacco signs on cigarette machines. It will shortly have to display signs on gaming machines. It is encouraged under codes of good practice to display signs about proof of age, drink-drive warnings, gaming-machine warnings to minors, and warnings about the size of the head on keg beer. It is recommended good practice to display notices about avoiding rape, minding your head on the doorframe, minding your step, minding that no one spikes your drink, minding that no one steals your handbag, making clear that the taking of drugs is not tolerated on the premises, publicising crime stoppers, local taxi services and the time when the juke box is switched off, and requesting customers to please leave quietly.
	The list of pub signage is already very long. In aggregate it is exceedingly burdensome. To add another category of sign to those that are legal requirements will make the burdens even greater. If we multiply that across all offices, factories, public buildings and commercial vehicles, I do not think that the Government have demonstrated that it is a worthwhile burden for the business community to shoulder. That is why I am proposing that a sunset provision should be applied to Clause 6.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am following the noble Earl's argument very closely and with enormous interest. This is the first admission from the opposition Front Bench that this law is permanent and is not up for amendment if by any chance there were a change of Government at the next election, or the one after. Is the noble Earl saying that he now accepts, possibly with our votes earlier here today, that this law is here permanently and will not be amended? If so, I welcome that, and it presumably underlines the logic of what he is saying about the need for signs not to be there for ever.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord should not read anything into what I said about what a future Conservative Government might or might not do. I had not intended to address that possibility; I was merely addressing the Bill as we now have it, and the debates that we had earlier today. I note the noble Lord's anxiety to find out what the next Conservative Government will do; I shall do my best to inform him as soon as I reasonably can.
	The sunset provision would bring the provisions of the clause to an end after three years unless the Secretary of State ruled otherwise, in which case they could be extended. My firm belief is that in framing legislation, we should try to minimise its burdens wherever possible. This proposal is the next best thing to deleting the clause altogether, and I hope that it will find favour with noble Lords. I beg to move.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I have a certain degree of sympathy with the noble Earl's objective. As somebody who loves reading, pubs are interesting places if you ever find yourself stuck without a book or newspaper; there is an awful lot to keep one's attention.
	My point for the noble Earl, which I put to the Minister for his reply, is about the length of time it takes to bring about cultural change. I am endlessly fascinated when I go to France and see signs saying that people on a roundabout have the right of way. They changed the law more than 20 years ago, when I started driving in France, and the signs telling people to "cedez le passage" are presumably still there because people are driving who first drove when conditions were different; they will presumably be there for quite a long time, because longevity is going up.
	While I can see what the noble Earl is trying to do, and understand that there will come a time when such signs are perhaps unnecessary, I wonder whether three years is long enough to cover a change. Might we not need to think in terms of a generation of people coming along, for whom what is being proposed becomes the norm? Perhaps there may be a happy compromise to be found.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not as impatient as my noble friend Lord Faulkner to know what a Conservative Government would do with this legislation. I am happy to wait a very long time, and to be kept in the dark on that issue.
	The noble Earl's long list of requirements on pubs was interesting, because it demonstrated the considerable social obligations that pubs must adhere to. The signage on no smoking is another. Under this Bill, no-smoking signage will be important for three reasons. First, it will inform the public and employees that they are in a smoke-free area, which will continue to be important, especially—as we said—for people visiting England from abroad. Secondly, it will assist occupiers, and those concerned in the management of the premises, by enabling them to point to evidence of a smoke-free requirement. This is likely to be particularly valuable should a dispute arise with someone on their premises. It cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility that disputes will arise between customers on these issues. Thirdly, it will be an indication to enforcement officers that premises are smoke free, and that any smoker in them ought reasonably to have known that. Signage is therefore likely to be important in any enforcement case against an individual who smokes in a smoke-free place. For all these reasons, no-smoking signage will be important into the future.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made an important point. We cannot be certain that the penny will have totally dropped with everybody, or that there will not need to be this kind of signage in pubs and clubs for a longer period than three years. Responding to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, earlier, I tried to reassure the House over our concern to support businesses in the lead-up to implementation, and to make signs that meet regulatory requirements readily available, free of charge. I said then, and repeat, that we intend to provide these signs, for example, with guidance to businesses on implementing the legislation, put downloadable copies on our website and keep stocks to send out to businesses that request them. We want to be as helpful as possible, and minimise the burdens on businesses in this area. These signs must be available well into the future.
	The growing knowledge of a general smoke-free requirement among the public over time will not do away with the need for signs. The defences within the Bill, in particular the defence that a person did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that he was in a smoke-free place, could come into play if signage was not displayed. That will continue to be a requirement. Much has been made about enforcement. That is an important part of the enforcement mechanisms.
	I do not believe that we can accept a sunset clause of this kind, as moved by the noble Earl. He is a persuasive speaker but I hope that I have been equally persuasive in explaining why the Government feel that a sunset clause on this provision would be inappropriate.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It seems, from what he has said, that the answer to all problems of proscribed public behaviour lies in putting up signs. In my view, signs are a side issue in the context of maintaining standards of behaviour in many situations, although not in all. I am at a loss to understand why the Government cannot envisage circumstances in which no-smoking signage can be done away with completely. I think those circumstances are easily imaginable.
	The great advantage of a sunset clause is that it forces Ministers to review the necessity and utility of a set of regulations, which can only be a good thing. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, may have a point: three years may not be long enough, but as she will see from my amendment, provision is made for Ministers to extend the regulations for a further period, so that possibility would not be cut off.
	I do not believe that the Minister addressed the points that I tried to make about proportionality and risk. We are not dealing with the kind of risk that attends at a petrol station, where one lit cigarette could mean catastrophe. Therefore, no-smoking signs are indispensable for health and safety reasons. Nor did he dispute the point that in most areas of the law, signage plays no part whatever, so why is it so vital here? I am not persuaded. Nevertheless, I shall reflect very carefully, as I always do, on what the Minister has said. In view of the hour, it is appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [Offence of smoking in smoke-free place]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
	Page 5, line 33, at end insert "(including premises which by virtue of regulations under section 3(4A) are smoke-free except in relation to performers)"
	Page 5, line 36, at end insert—
	"( ) But a person who smokes in premises which are not smoke-free in relation to performers by virtue of regulations under section 3(4A) does not commit an offence if he is such a performer."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Offence of failing to prevent smoking in smoke-free place]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) The reference in subsection (1) to a person smoking does not include a performer in relation to whom the premises are not smoke-free by virtue of regulations under section 3(4A)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 6, line 11, leave out "description of person" and insert "on persons of a description"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 6, line 32, at end insert "(and references to smoke-free premises include premises which by virtue of regulations under section 3(4A) are smoke-free except in relation to performers)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Power to amend age for sale of tobacco etc]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 9, line 1, at end insert "or higher than 18"

Lord Warner: My Lords, in December last year, the Government announced their intention to consult on raising the minimum age limit for sales of tobacco. This consultation will be published in early July and the results will be considered carefully before a final decision is made.
	Clause 13 was introduced with cross-party support during the Bill's passage through the other place. The powers in this clause allow the Secretary of State the appropriate flexibility to raise the minimum age limit for sales of tobacco through secondary legislation, by the affirmative resolution procedure, after consultation in the usual way. The clause specifies that the age limit can be changed only to an age not lower than 16, but does not specify an upper age.
	I explained in Grand Committee that it is not our intention to raise the age for sale of tobacco products any higher than 18 years, and that this will happen only if such a rise receives support following a full public consultation. However, it is possible that the Bill as currently drafted could allow the minimum age to be raised to 21 years. I realise that that possibility caused the Committee concern, despite my assurances that that is not the Government's intention. I have therefore tabled Amendment No. 22, which specifies that the minimum age limit for the sale of tobacco products cannot be higher than 18. I hope that this puts the Government's intentions beyond doubt, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.

Monday, 19 June 2006.